Quantcast
DC Carry ruling... finally - THR
THR  

Go Back   THR > Social Situations > Legal

Welcome to THR
You are currently viewing our site as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions, articles and access our other FREE features. By joining our free community you will have, access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!


If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please visit the help section.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old July 26, 2014, 07:27 PM   #1
AFRetired
Member
 
 
Join Date: March 26, 2008
Posts: 22
DC Carry ruling... finally

Finally, a ruling on the DC carry issue. I'm sure it will be appealed to SCOUS.


"A federal judge in the District of Columbia on Saturday overturned the city’s total ban on residents being allowing to carry firearms outside their home, declaring the law “unconstitutional” in a landmark decision for gun-rights activists"

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014...ntcmp=obinsite
AFRetired is offline  
Old July 26, 2014, 07:30 PM   #2
Midwest
Member
 
 
Join Date: September 13, 2011
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 1,747
BREAKING: DC’s Ban on Right To Carry Overturned

BREAKING: DC’s Ban on Right To Carry Overturned

This is not speculation, this isn't someone's opinion, this is the real deal.

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/201...ry-overturned/


"Gun rights advocate extraordinaire Alan Gura reports that the DC District Court just overturned the District of Columbia’s ban on the right to carry firearms."

Here is the ruling

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin...?2009cv1482-51

Also read here

http://alangura.com/wp-content/uploa...CT_OPINION.pdf

.
__________________
I am not a lawyer, I just study the history of gun control laws.
__________________________________________________________________________
Looking for "ghost guns" which shoot "heat seeking bullets that cook animals" with "more thrusts per squeeze" using "magazines that can only be used once" featuring "the shoulder thing that goes up" and "assault weapons that can be bought at a store without a NICS check".

Moms Demand Action should change their name to Bloomberg Demands Compliance.
.
Midwest is offline  
Old July 26, 2014, 07:44 PM   #3
aarondhgraham
Member
 
 
Join Date: September 28, 2012
Location: Stillwater, Oklahoma
Posts: 840
This is great news,,,

This is great news,,,
But the cynic in me says,,,
DC will drag this out for many years

I'm impatient is all.

Aarond

.
__________________
Aarond is good,,, Aarond is wise,,, Always trust Aarond,,, (most of the time)
aarondhgraham is offline  
Old July 26, 2014, 08:13 PM   #4
splithoof
Member
 
 
Join Date: December 26, 2010
Posts: 943
Thank you for posting that link…..
While the appeals will be certain, and the process very long, it is still good news. Perhaps in my lifetime this will eventually bleed down to Californiastan, and effect meaningful, practical change. The politicians and their minions will continue to drag their diamond coated titanium heels all the way to the end, but in the end I think liberty will prevail. Another glimmer of hope in a statist dust storm.
splithoof is offline  
Old July 26, 2014, 08:19 PM   #5
Twiki357
Member
 
 
Join Date: January 26, 2011
Location: Prescott Valley, AZ
Posts: 1,075
Emily Miller (Fox5 DC): “The court ordered the city to now allow residents from the District and other states to carry weapon within its boundaries.” I sure like that other states part. If it stands as implied, it could also open the door for national reciprocity.
Twiki357 is offline  
Old July 26, 2014, 08:53 PM   #6
Yo Mama
Member
 
 
Join Date: June 4, 2008
Posts: 2,486
Someone buy Gura a beer!

You the man!!!
Yo Mama is offline  
Old July 26, 2014, 08:57 PM   #7
splithoof
Member
 
 
Join Date: December 26, 2010
Posts: 943
Not only beer for Gura, but DIAPERS for the politicians. The politicians of Leftist Los Angeles may in the future really need them, especially the chief of police.
splithoof is offline  
Old July 26, 2014, 08:58 PM   #8
Willie Sutton
Member
 
 
Join Date: April 28, 2013
Posts: 1,622
Just logged on to share the news, and see it's already been posted.

Nice news for a Saturday!


Willie

.
Willie Sutton is online now  
Old July 26, 2014, 09:31 PM   #9
pendennis
Member
 
 
Join Date: August 6, 2011
Location: SE Mich - O/S Detroit
Posts: 636
While I'm very glad for the citizens of D.C., and those who would enter the District, I would like to know why McDonald isn't applicable, and eliminating all these separate actions.

McDonald recognized that the 14th Amendment applied to the several states, ergo protecting 2nd Amendment rights.
__________________
Best, Dennis
The American republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money. - Alexis de Tocqueville
pendennis is offline  
Old July 26, 2014, 09:31 PM   #10
Field Tester
Member
 
 
Join Date: April 10, 2012
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 697
Wow, wow, wow!
This ruling is going to be felt in a lot more places than just DC
First the 9th Circuit and now this. Hopefully we can keep this momentum.
Field Tester is offline  
Old July 26, 2014, 09:50 PM   #11
mgkdrgn
Member
 
 
Join Date: July 21, 2008
Location: Lexington, SC
Posts: 3,631
So, they switch from "no permits" to "may issue" ... and issue none.

Big whoop.
__________________
COLUMBIA ARMS
LEXINGTON, SC
Transfers ($20), CONSIGNMENT SALES (15% commission)
mgkdrgn is offline  
Old July 26, 2014, 09:51 PM   #12
bushmaster1313
Member
 
 
Join Date: October 26, 2008
Location: Peoples Republik of New Jersey
Posts: 3,503
Quote:
So, they switch from "no permits" to "may issue" ... and issue none.

Big whoop.
Right

it don't mean squat until the Supreme Court says that may issue is unconstitutional.
__________________
Vote Responsibly
Buy American
bushmaster1313 is offline  
Old July 26, 2014, 09:53 PM   #13
ClickClickD'oh
Member
 
 
Join Date: September 12, 2007
Location: Lewisville, Tx
Posts: 1,395
"May Issue" hasn't been doing so well in the courts either these days.
ClickClickD'oh is offline  
Old July 26, 2014, 09:57 PM   #14
Midwest
Member
 
 
Join Date: September 13, 2011
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 1,747
Quote:
Originally Posted by ClickClickD'oh View Post
"May Issue" hasn't been doing so well in the courts either these days.
Now we have to work on getting that "may issue" changed in New Jersey, Maryland, Hawaii, New York City and the other counties in NY and California that are "may issue" as well as Rhode Island which 1/2 the state is "may issue".
__________________
I am not a lawyer, I just study the history of gun control laws.
__________________________________________________________________________
Looking for "ghost guns" which shoot "heat seeking bullets that cook animals" with "more thrusts per squeeze" using "magazines that can only be used once" featuring "the shoulder thing that goes up" and "assault weapons that can be bought at a store without a NICS check".

Moms Demand Action should change their name to Bloomberg Demands Compliance.
.
Midwest is offline  
Old July 26, 2014, 10:39 PM   #15
Sam1911
Moderator
 
 
Join Date: October 22, 2007
Location: Central PA
Posts: 28,341
Make sure you've read the whole ruling before you decide it ISN'T AWESOME.

Quote:
So, they switch from "no permits" to "may issue" ... and issue none.

Big whoop.
It would seem that's the exact problem the plaintiffs filed for relief from (one of them).

Quote:
In their complaint, Plaintiffs assert two claims for relief. In their first claim, Plaintiffs allege that, "[b]y requiring a permit to carry a handgun in public, yet refusing to issue such permits and refusing to allow the possession of any handgun that would be carried in public, Defendants maintain a complete ban on the carrying of handguns in public by almost all individuals."
In its decision, the court specifically ORDERS that DC is enjoined from enforcing it's law D.C. Code § 22-4504(a).

Quote:
D.C. Code § 22-4504(a) provides that "[n]o person shall carry within the District of Columbia either openly or concealed on or about their person, a pistol, without a license issued pursuant to District of Columbia law, or any deadly or dangerous weapon capable of being so concealed." The first violation of this section by a non-felon is punishable by a fine up to $5,000 and imprisonment of up to five years.
So they can't enforce their no-carry law, and in fact it seems they can't even require a license to carry at all!
__________________
-- Sam

"...with liberty and justice for all." (Must be 18. Void where prohibited. Some restrictions may apply. Not available in all states.)
-D. Stanhope

Sights Practical Shooters -- IDPA

My Knife Showroom
Sam1911 is offline  
Old July 26, 2014, 11:27 PM   #16
GlowinPontiac
Member
 
 
Join Date: April 4, 2007
Location: Central CT
Posts: 584
I have a feeling the first person to test this out by carrying in DC with no permit is going to be in for a world of hurt. The police and politicians are going to be very angry and looking for someone to make pay for this.
GlowinPontiac is offline  
Old July 26, 2014, 11:31 PM   #17
Sam1911
Moderator
 
 
Join Date: October 22, 2007
Location: Central PA
Posts: 28,341
Quote:
I have a feeling the first person to test this out by carrying in DC with no permit is going to be in for a world of hurt. The police and politicians are going to be very angry and looking for someone to make pay for this.
So are you saying you expect them to ignore the court's order? Or just that they'll harass with other charges?
__________________
-- Sam

"...with liberty and justice for all." (Must be 18. Void where prohibited. Some restrictions may apply. Not available in all states.)
-D. Stanhope

Sights Practical Shooters -- IDPA

My Knife Showroom
Sam1911 is offline  
Old July 26, 2014, 11:34 PM   #18
Sam1911
Moderator
 
 
Join Date: October 22, 2007
Location: Central PA
Posts: 28,341
My simplified summation of the decision is this:

1) DC can still require a permit to possess a handgun.
2) DC HAS to issue that permit, if no legitimate reason is found not to.
3) DC HAS to issue that permit to folks who reside in DC and outside of DC too.
4) IF a person has been issued a permit to possess, they are legal to carry it.
5) When applying for a permit to possess, "Carry for defense outside the home" will be an acceptable reason.

Did I miss anything?
__________________
-- Sam

"...with liberty and justice for all." (Must be 18. Void where prohibited. Some restrictions may apply. Not available in all states.)
-D. Stanhope

Sights Practical Shooters -- IDPA

My Knife Showroom

Last edited by Sam1911; July 26, 2014 at 11:40 PM.
Sam1911 is offline  
Old July 27, 2014, 12:48 AM   #19
Willie Sutton
Member
 
 
Join Date: April 28, 2013
Posts: 1,622
In their complaint, Plaintiffs assert two claims for relief. In their first claim, Plaintiffs allege that, "[b]y requiring a permit to carry a handgun in public, yet refusing to issue such permits and refusing to allow the possession of any handgun that would be carried in public, Defendants maintain a complete ban on the carrying of handguns in public by almost all individuals."


Seems like a springboard to revisit the NJ "May Issue" situation.

Good news in any event.


Willie

.
Willie Sutton is online now  
Old July 27, 2014, 01:06 AM   #20
splithoof
Member
 
 
Join Date: December 26, 2010
Posts: 943
If, after all the appeals have been exhausted and the courts rule in our favor, I can see places like DC and Los Angeles City & County simply refusing to comply, either through endless delay tactics, or an outright "no, we won't, because we feel the ruling is wrong" attitude. In that event, would there be any practical recourse? Who would/could actually MAKE them physically issue any permits? I see outright refusal on some parts.
splithoof is offline  
Old July 27, 2014, 05:20 AM   #21
swinokur
Member
 
 
Join Date: April 11, 2009
Location: Bethesda, MD
Posts: 850
Here's the actual decision. It can be appealed to the DC Circuit, but remember they are bound by their previous decision in Heller.
.
.
Attached Files
File Type: pdf DCT_OPINION.pdf (149.2 KB, 2 views)
swinokur is offline  
Old July 27, 2014, 07:30 AM   #22
AlexanderA
Member
 
 
Join Date: February 27, 2011
Location: Virginia
Posts: 2,155
If this stands on appeal (which I doubt will happen), it's going to cause a security headache for the folks trying to guard the federal government activities and installations within the District. They're probably going to respond by declaring the "federal enclave" (the core area including the White House, the Capitol, the Mall, and all the surrounding government buildings and connecting streets) a gun-free zone, the same as a military base. In the meantime, the District government will enact a stringent licensing scheme that is, in effect, "may issue" verging on "no issue." And Congress will go along with this (regardless of its political makeup), because the Congresspeople value their personal security more than they do the pro-gun rhetoric that they spout for the benefit of their constituents back home. Call me cynical.
AlexanderA is offline  
Old July 27, 2014, 07:57 AM   #23
Drail
Member
 
 
Join Date: January 17, 2008
Posts: 3,589
It will be fought with much kicking and screaming and gnashing of teeth. Just like Chicago. I've always felt that if they truly believe that guns are so horrible and dangerous and evil then they should ban them all - from the police and the Secret Service and the military as well. No guns for anyone. They're just too dangerous to our society. Think of the children. It's not over yet. I would personally like to see the whole issue of requiring a "license" or "tax" or "fee" to exercise a Constitutional right addressed by the Courts.

Last edited by Drail; July 27, 2014 at 08:03 AM.
Drail is offline  
Old July 27, 2014, 08:18 AM   #24
T2K
Member
 
 
Join Date: March 17, 2010
Location: South Carolinian working in Singapore
Posts: 128
Someone is likely to test this and will probably be instantly arrested and charged with a mountain of felonies which will take years and piles of money to litigate. So goes the USA in the 21st century.
__________________
You have a right to the pursuit of happiness, not a guarantee that you shall have it.
T2K is offline  
Old July 27, 2014, 08:25 AM   #25
F-111 John
Member
 
 
Join Date: August 2, 2011
Location: Holt, MI
Posts: 683
Quote:
My simplified summation of the decision is this:

1) DC can still require a permit to possess a handgun.
2) DC HAS to issue that permit, if no legitimate reason is found not to.
3) DC HAS to issue that permit to folks who reside in DC and outside of DC too.
4) IF a person has been issued a permit to possess, they are legal to carry it.
5) When applying for a permit to possess, "Carry for defense outside the home" will be an acceptable reason.

Did I miss anything?
No, but I think the court and the plantiff's plea for summary judgement missed something. The court enjoined the District from enforcing D.C. Code § 7-2502.02(a)(4) and D.C. Code § 22-4504(a), but failed to include D.C Code § 7-2506.01(a)(3) in its order.

Quote:
D.C. code § 7-2506.01. Persons permitted to possess ammunition:

(a) No person shall possess ammunition in the District of Columbia unless:

(1) He is a licensed dealer pursuant to subchapter IV of this unit;

(2) He is an officer, agent, or employee of the District of Columbia or the United States of America, on duty and acting within the scope of his duties when possessing such ammunition;

(3) He is the holder of a valid registration certificate for a firearm pursuant to subchapter II of this chapter; except, that no such person shall possess one or more restricted pistol bullets;

(4) He holds an ammunition collector's certificate on September 24, 1976; or

(5) He temporarily possesses ammunition while participating in a firearms training and safety class conducted by a firearms instructor.

(b) No person in the District shall possess, sell, or transfer any large capacity ammunition feeding device regardless of whether the device is attached to a firearm. For the purposes of this subsection, the term "large capacity ammunition feeding device" means a magazine, belt, drum, feed strip, or similar device that has a capacity of, or that can be readily restored or converted to accept, more than 10 rounds of ammunition. The term "large capacity ammunition feeding device" shall not include an attached tubular device designed to accept, and capable of operating only with, .22 caliber rimfire ammunition.
Am I mistaken?
F-111 John is offline  
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:12 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
vBulletin Optimisation by vB Optimise.
This site, its contents, Shooting Reviews, and its contents are Copyright (c) 2010-2013 Firearms Forum, Inc.
IMPORTANT DISCLAIMER
Although The High Road has attempted to provide accurate information on the forum, The High Road assumes no responsibility for the accuracy of the information. All information is provided "as is" with all faults without warranty of any kind, either express or implied. Neither The High Road nor any of its directors, members, managers, employees, agents, vendors, or suppliers will be liable for any direct, indirect, general, bodily injury, compensatory, special, punitive, consequential, or incidental damages including, without limitation, lost profits or revenues, costs of replacement goods, loss or damage to data arising out of the use or inability to use this forum or any services associated with this forum, or damages from the use of or reliance on the information present on this forum, even if you have been advised of the possibility of such damages.