DC Carry ruling... finally

I believe the ruling specifically stated "Handguns", so I would say, No.

I need to address some of this

Not sure if the author is correct that the recent DC gun ruling creates National CCW Reciprocity.

Click to expand...

While a National CCW Reciprocity sounds like a great idea. The idea of the Feds running it (ruining it) is not a good idea. Right now the individual states themselves set reciprocity. And that may sound like "it is not good enough". I think leaving it to the states is the best way. Maybe I am looking at this this wrong. Tell me why.

Wow! Talk about a gift. If this ruling is not challenged and overthrown, Palmer vs. DC paves the way for the gun lobby to get what it has always wanted, namely, national concealed-carry without having to pass a federal law at all.

Click to expand...

If it can be done without the Feds getting involved. I would like to know more about it. Right now in some states (like Kentucky) we can open carry without a permit. And we can also go to some other states and open carry without a permit.

I don't want this to end up that everyone will need a carry permit to even open carry. Or worse, require permit to carry in Vermont, Alaska, Arizona and Wyoming This is why we have to be careful for what we wish for.

We can only hope, but DC is not a state so their "State's Rights" are limited.

Click to expand...

Has anyone here heard that Obama is in favor of DC becoming a state?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local...536f3a-110d-11e4-9285-4243a40ddc97_story.html

If DC does become a state, would the recent ruling transfer over? Or will they start from scratch and just end up as another NJ or MD ?

What I imagine will happen is if and when DC creates its own permit it will have to also be available to non-residents.

Click to expand...

Would this force other states like New York, California and other states to issue non-resident permits or grant reciprocity?

Lot of questions and concerns............

.

Has anyone here heard that Obama is in favor of DC becoming a state?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local...536f3a-110d-11e4-9285-4243a40ddc97_story.html

If DC does become a state, would the recent ruling also transfer over? Or will DC start their firearms laws from scratch (because they would be a new state) and just end up as another NJ or MD with lack of gun rights?

Maybe the Prez saw this coming down the pike and that is why he said that statement. Maybe that is why there isn't a bigger uproar over this? Because DC will become a state?

.

Would this force other states like New York, California and other states to issue non-resident permits or grant reciprocity?

Click to expand...

Sure, depends on if this ruling has broad or narrow implications though.

Also, just because a state is may issue doesn't mean it is not legally possible for a non-resident to get a permit. Of course just because it is legally possible doesn't mean it will get issued in practice.

steve4102 said:

I believe the ruling specifically stated "Handguns", so I would say, No.

Click to expand...

the chief's order says nothing about it applying only to handguns. it says 22-4504(a) is not to be enforced.

ilbob said:

the chief's order says nothing about it applying only to handguns. it says 22-4504(a) is not to be enforced.

Click to expand...

Youre wrong.

http://mpdc.dc.gov/release/possession-firearms-district

If DC does become a state, would the recent ruling also transfer over? Or will DC start their firearms laws from scratch (because they would be a new state) and just end up as another NJ or MD with lack of gun rights?

Click to expand...

Unless the new State of DC was somehow moved out of the court district where this ruling was handed down, the ruling would still apply.

DC the state would have to proceed with trying to work with or around that ruling just the same as DC the District will.

While a National CCW Reciprocity sounds like a great idea. The idea of the Feds running it (ruining it) is not a good idea. Right now the individual states themselves set reciprocity. And that may sound like "it is not good enough". I think leaving it to the states is the best way. Maybe I am looking at this this wrong. Tell me why.

Click to expand...

The Feds do not have to regulate national reciprocity of handgun permits any more than they regulate reciprocity for driver's licenses or marriage licenses. There's no reason they shouldn't fall under the "full faith and credit" those other licenses do.

vamo said:

Sure, depends on if this ruling has broad or narrow implications though.

Also, just because a state is may issue doesn't mean it is not legally possible for a non-resident to get a permit. Of course just because it is legally possible doesn't mean it will get issued in practice.

Click to expand...

While NY State does issue gun permits to out of state residents who have businesses in New York State. That is still a far cry from reciprocity.

http://www.usacarry.com/new_york_concealed_carry_permit_information.html


"Issuing Authority:
Licensing Officer of the City or County where the applicant resides, is principally employed, or where his principal place of business as a merchant or storekeeper is located."

.

Now the interesting thing, to me, is that since this is merely an injunction against enforcing a law prohibiting carry, (to state the obvious) it ISN'T a law governing carry.

That means that aside from the federal laws pertaining to federal buildings occupied by federal workers, there's no list of prohibited places and I'd assume rather a wide open clean slate regarding all sorts of other carry laws. Since they've hand no lawful carry, they haven't written that you can't carry in a bar, or a church. As one example, probably don't (???) have a specific charge for possession of a gun while drinking, or on "posted" private property, since up until now possession of a gun AT ALL would be a felony.

One thing to be exceptionally careful about is GFSZA. That could be an absolute KILLER. As you can't possibly have a permit to carry issued by DC that qualifies you to carry within a distance of 1,000 feet from the grounds of a public, parochial or private school, you would be violating GFSZA if you do.

And you can rest assured that there are a LOT of schools in DC. And you can visualize that when you're on a random city street you're almost always within 1,000 feet of hundreds of things you don't know of or suspect are there. Like schools.

Now, I have to imagine that probably about 0.01% of DC cops have ever heard of GFSZA, and even fewer would have any better idea than you do that you happen to be standing 937' from Ms. Crabopple's second grade class held in the basement of the local Catholic Church. (And the Chief's instruction sheet did not bring up GFSCA as a useful "gotcha!")

But if they really wanted to HURT people who dared carry in the District, that would sure be a way to do it.

If you're going to carry, try your darnedest to figure out ahead of time how to avoid school grounds.

vamo said:

Sure, depends on if this ruling has broad or narrow implications though.

Also, just because a state is may issue doesn't mean it is not legally possible for a non-resident to get a permit. Of course just because it is legally possible doesn't mean it will get issued in practice.

Click to expand...

The "full faith and credit" clause is subject to interpretation by Congress. Without a clear majority in both houses, it's doubtful that any reciprocity law could be enacted. The current President would surely veto any law liberalizing concealed carry.

And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.

Click to expand...

What if it wasn't about granting CCW licenses to out of state residents and was more like a drivers license.


If you can legally carry you just pass thru with your license and don't have to have an actual license from another state?

Thanks for the reminder and warning about the Gun Free School Zones.
.

I don't see anything that the Judge wrote as guaranteeing some kind of seamless national reciprocity. Rather simply that states (IN HIS DISTRICT) must have some provision for issuing permits to non-residents.

If DC does become a state, would the recent ruling transfer over? Or will they start from scratch and just end up as another NJ or MD ?

Click to expand...

Whether or not DC ends up as a state, it will have to abide by the ruling issued by this federal district judge (unless DC the state were moved out of that district). DC the District or DC the State can certainly try to pass a carry permit law that meets the letter of the judge's ruling. Now, what will be a sticky wicket is that the judge specifically forbade enforcing the District's no-carry-without-a-permit-law, so exactly how they'll phrase their next attempt in order not to directly violate his edict remains to be seen.

What I imagine will happen is if and when DC creates its own permit it will have to also be available to non-residents.

Click to expand...

IF DC can figure out a way to write a permit law that does not directly conflict the the judge's enjoining of the District from enforcing their permit-carry law, then yes. But DC may not be able to wriggle so cleverly as to get around that ruling.

They may just have to directly appeal it, and then hope SCOTUS will hear it and agree with their position.

Would this force other states like New York, California and other states to issue non-resident permits or grant reciprocity?

Click to expand...

Only if they're in the same federal district. (So NY, yes, CA no.) Only if appealed to (and won at) the SCOTUS would the ruling apply nationwide.

What if it wasn't about granting CCW licenses to out of state residents and was more like a drivers license.


If you can legally carry you just pass thru with your license and don't have to have an actual license from another state?

Click to expand...

That would be wonderful. But that's not federal law, simply a "gentlemen's agreement" between the states. If they were so inclined, they could agree to that today.

So, as expected, DC sent in their request for a stay, pending appeal or for 180 days.

Reading over the instructions to the MPD, Chief Lanier lays out some scenarios:

Scenarios
You stop a man on the street carrying a firearm and:
Scenario 1: The man says he is a resident of the District, but the gun is unregistered.
You should charge him with Unregistered Firearm.

Scenario 2: The man lives in Vermont, which does not require a license or permit for either open or concealed carry of a handgun. You run his name, and no criminal record is apparent.
You should record any relevant information for potential further investigation, and he is free to leave.

Scenario 3: The man lives in Virginia, where no license or permit is required to openly carry a handgun. However, when you run his name, records indicate that he is a convicted felon.
Under District and federal law, felons may not legally possess a firearm. You should arrest him for Unlawful Possession of a Firearm.

Click to expand...

So, extrapolating from Scenario 2, won't this likely drive a practice that the police will likely record "any relevant information for potential further investigation" of anyone encountered with a firearm.

Then, is DC likely to maintain a database of all individuals encountered with firearms, legally or illegally?

This would appear to go beyond "stop and identify" (even though DC has no stop and identify laws on the books, MPD is pretty well known for hauling folks in if they cannot/will not produce ID) ...

Also uncomfortable is that - even though the court order declared a ban on carry unenforceable - MPD is still approaching carry as something to stop people (and no clear guidance as to whether this is a brief "Terry stop" or something more approaching an invitation to look for probable cause. .

BTW, I had a very pleasant late lunch in DC today

Sam1911

So are you saying you expect them to ignore the court's order? Or just that they'll harass with other charges?

Click to expand...

My guess would be both, actually.

And they will appeal this court ruling (already filed) until the last taxpayer dollar is spent and beyond.

We are -years- away from having this "resolved", if ever.

There's lots of buzz hereabouts concerning CCW permits. Even the judge injected some dicta on it in his opinion. It's all a little premature, as they may be unconstitutional.

My guess would be both, actually.

Click to expand...

Well, at the least they did NOT simply ignore the judge's order! In fact, the Chief's notice to her officers reads more like the most straight-ahead conformity with his ruling we could hope for.

Now DC gov may succeed in reigning that back in, but if she's willing to jump at his order, it doesn't look like we'll much have to worry that the police will ignore the court.

Those scenarios above are almost comical; doesn't the 14th say something about enforcing laws against some citizens but not others? Only those living within DC (*cough* --the ghettos-- *cough*) must have the unobtainable possession licenses? Talk about your Jim Crow. Which might actually explain why they've been so agreeable about this development so far; they can still nail the people who 'deserve it' if they carry guns for themselves.

One scenario I like to fantasize about is that the DC police are attempting to illicit "blood in the streets" by strictly complying with this flagrantly reckless and insane ruling (), only to cause the largest month-over-month drop in attacks on tourists and visitors ever seen (sadly, likely with a corresponding rise of targeted attacks on the disarmed neighborhoods, but maybe not). We are starting to see something like this in Detroit, so far this year, so maybe miracles can come true (one or two more and Gura can probably be canonized )

TCB

Only those living within DC (*cough* --the ghettos-- *cough*) must have the unobtainable possession licenses?

Click to expand...

Combined with the Judges ruling that they HAVE to give permits to (otherwise lawful) folks who say they want to own guns for carry, I'm not sure I see this like you do. More like DC's permits system just became "shall issue."

Well since I live within spittings distance of that cesspool...

Why not? Seems the police chief had a word out we would be there...



The only cop we say immediately turned their lights on and reversed at full speed.
Then got out and ran into a pizza place. Came out 5 mins later w/ pizza and left.

Oh well. I was hoping to get a pic w/ da po-po.

You know, it would be awfully cool to have the 1st Annual THR Meet & Greet on the National Capitol Mall...

Here is the relevant portion of the MPDC order. Look at the third paragraph. If you are not prohibited in your home state-DC says you're legal. The ammo ban only applies to DC residents. A couple of guys I know OC'd yesterday on the Mall near the Washington Monument. Gura says he's ok with a 90 day stay but not 180 days. I believe he has until August 4th to reply to the city's planned request for a stay.

Carry on NPS property is ok because NPS units follow the law of the jurisdiction they are in-so for now OC and CC on NPS property seems legal.

IANAL.

Gura says he's ok with a 90 day stay but not 180 days. I believe he has until August 4th to reply to the city's planned request for a stay.

Click to expand...

Ok, we need to be VERY careful to keep track of that. If the District is granted a stay and their laws go back into effect, even temporarily, somebody's likely to get really fouled up if they're celebrating DC's new openness a day too late...