Latest ruling from D.C.

Status
Not open for further replies.
There is an update to the story (same link as above)


UPDATE: Rob Marus, communications director for the D.C. attorney general’s office, responded to this article with the following.


“[T]he Office of the Attorney General has not and would not instruct any officer of the District government to ignore any Court order. As the District stated in its reply brief filed with the Court yesterday (copy attached), the Metropolitan Police Department last week revised its concealed-carry licensing website (http://mpdc.dc.gov/page/applying-concealed-carry-pistol-license) to read:


“‘In light of the preliminary injunction issued by Judge Richard Leon of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia in Grace v. District of Columbia, Civil Action No. 15-2234, the Metropolitan Police Department will not require applicants to comport with the ‘Good Reason’ requirement under D.C. Official Code § 7-2509.11(1)(A) & (B), while the injunction is effective (see ‘Grace Preliminary Injunction’ document, attached below). Applicants must still meet all other requirements when applying for a license to carry a concealed firearm. Applicants who were previously denied pursuant to the ‘Good Reason’ requirement may submit a new application. The application fee for re-applicants meeting this criteria will be waived. New applicants should use the existing forms until such time as the Department is able to revise forms in accordance with the court’s order.
 
The spokesperson for the DC AG corrected the report and said that MPDC had updated their web page and until and if a stay is granted, DC will not require a good reason to issue a permit. But MPDC is telling applicants to expect the full 90 days for processing. Gives them plenty of wiggle room while the stay is considered.
 

Attachments

  • mpdc.JPG
    mpdc.JPG
    156.3 KB · Views: 12
Not a surprising decision, given two of the three judges. Judge Wilkins and Rogers were Clinton and Obama appointees, respectively, with fairly deep roots in local DC government and politics, and not very supportive of 2A issues.

Judge Kavanaugh was a Bush (the younger) appointee, worked under Ken Starr.

It is doubtful that Wilkins and Rogers are going to be friendly to the concept of expanding upon Heller beyond the confines of the home. I would be happy to be proven wrong.

In Dearth v Holder, Wilkins - citing Heller - agreed with the government that laws restricting commercial firearms sales are “presumptively lawful” if they are “longstanding,” and, therefore, are presumed not to burden conduct that falls within the scope of 2A. Further, Wilkins cited 922(b)(3)(B) to reason that the law allows non-resident transfers for sporting purposes, but not if the sole purpose is to use the firearm in self-defense.

Dearth v Holder has no direct relation to the current case, but it does go to show that the case is in an unsympathetic appeals court with Wilkins and Rogers.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top