pdsmith505
Member
- Joined
- Mar 9, 2013
- Messages
- 736
https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3900192/7-25-17-DC-Circuit-Wrenn.pdf
TL
R version:
DC Circuit rules that "May issue" permitting schemes for carrying firearms in public are a violation of the 2A.
Huzzah!
"At the Second Amendment’s core lies the right of responsible citizens to carry firearms for personal self-defense beyond the home, subject to longstanding restrictions. These traditional
limits include, for instance, licensing requirements, but not bans on carrying in urban areas like D.C. or bans on carrying absent a special need for self-defense. In fact, the Amendment’s core at a minimum shields the typically situated citizen’s ability to carry common arms generally. The District’s good-reason law is necessarily a total ban on exercises of that constitutional right for most D.C. residents. That’s enough to sink this law under Heller I."
The way I read it, the DC Circuit ruled that licensing is permissible, but any scheme that denies the average person the right to carry is unconstitutional.
The burden of proof is on the government to show that a person is more dangerous that the average citizen.
I like it.
I especially like that they called out the circuit courts that ruled differently.
Still not the law of the land across the US, but it's hard to see SCOTUS not taking up a future case.
TL
R version:DC Circuit rules that "May issue" permitting schemes for carrying firearms in public are a violation of the 2A.
Huzzah!
"At the Second Amendment’s core lies the right of responsible citizens to carry firearms for personal self-defense beyond the home, subject to longstanding restrictions. These traditional
limits include, for instance, licensing requirements, but not bans on carrying in urban areas like D.C. or bans on carrying absent a special need for self-defense. In fact, the Amendment’s core at a minimum shields the typically situated citizen’s ability to carry common arms generally. The District’s good-reason law is necessarily a total ban on exercises of that constitutional right for most D.C. residents. That’s enough to sink this law under Heller I."
The way I read it, the DC Circuit ruled that licensing is permissible, but any scheme that denies the average person the right to carry is unconstitutional.
The burden of proof is on the government to show that a person is more dangerous that the average citizen.
I like it.
I especially like that they called out the circuit courts that ruled differently.
Still not the law of the land across the US, but it's hard to see SCOTUS not taking up a future case.
