DC Carry ruling... finally

Status
Not open for further replies.
HOLY BALLS.

:what:

1459759_10203897239807268_8453176733346973842_n.jpg


At least until the injunction is filed tomorrow!!!
 
I want to believe that this is possible but I wont until I see pictures of people with guns on their hips freely walking through DC.

I just cant see DC giving up and throwing in the towel this easily without trying to set up a NYC style permit system where its practically impossible for anyone to get a permit.
 
As expected, the DC AG's office is going to seek a stay on Monday while the DC gov decides whether (how really) to appeal. The AG indicated that order is in effect immediately, but is also "promising" that this will be a very "short" effective period. FWIW, despite what Emily Miller tweeted, I heard from source on the force that MPD has not yet given its officers any instructions on not enforcing the law. At least not in his ward.

The AG's office continues to state the need for "protecting government officials and infrastructure" ... DC council officials are lambasting the judge as being "out-of'-state", a temporary appointee, and someone who doesn't understand particulars of DC's environment.

Judge Scullin's bio is worth a read - Army Ranger, Vietnam vet (173rd Airborne), organized crime prosecutor in both NY and Florida, appointed to the Federal bench, served on the FISA court for 7 years.
 
A lot of the naysayers should remember, all of those negative things were said about Illinois too. For example it will be no issue May issue or my favorite "mark my word no one will get to carry." We now have shall issue ccw and over 80k people already carrying legally.
 
Drail said:
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.
Click to expand...
Or any special tax placed on firearms or ammunition at any level of commerce.

Note: Special tax: Tax placed on specific items - not a general tax.
 
Notice how Judge Scullin specified that this injunction applies to anyone who receives "actual notice" of the opinion. The opinion itself can be used as a CWP, because the carrier can provide the officer with "actual notice." While this won't make you popular with the police officer, it is "actual notice."
 
I think we're just seeing some healthy pragmatism ... Alan Gura himself noted that he expects to see this issue back in court. Again, pragmatically speaking, this is another (big) step in a continuing process.

DC gov is again having a hard time swallowing the concept that they can't have a total ban. Remember, when the Supreme Court struck down DC's total ban on handguns, DC put together a pretty burdensome process for permitting and registering handguns.

Assuming this current court order is not overturned on appeal (or is upheld by the Supremes, if it eventually goes that high), I fully expect DC to put together an onerous process for DC carry permits and recognition of out-of-state carry permits.

Not a naysayer - but as a former DC resident (and NYC resident to boot), I've had some first hand experience with city gov and their shenanigans.


ljnowell said:
A lot of the naysayers should remember, all of those negative things were said about Illinois too. For example it will be no issue May issue or my favorite "mark my word no one will get to carry." We now have shall issue ccw and over 80k people already carrying legally.
Click to expand...
 
Let us not forget how Unconstitutional the philosophy behind gun control is and always has been.

Brief of Amicus Curiae submitted by Congress of Racial Equality in Support of Respondent, in the case of D.C. v Heller 2008. Lays out the history of gun control used as control of Black Americans.

Just one of many items cited: Watson v. Stone, 148 Fla. 516, 524, 4 So.2d 700, 703 (1941)
Justice Buford of the Florida Supreme Court noted in his concurring opinion narrowly construing a Florida gun control statute:
I know something of the history of this legislation. The original Act of 1893 was passed when there was a great influx of negro laborers in the State drawn here for the purpose of working in turpentine and lumber camps. The same condition existed when the Act was amended in 1901 and the Act was passed for the purpose of disarming the negro laborers .... The statute was never intended to be applied to the white population and in practice has never been so applied .... there has never been, within my knowledge, any effort to enforce the provisions of this statute as to white people because it has generally conceded to be in contravention of the Constitution and nonenforceable if contested.
Click to expand...
Summary of Argument, folio 2, page 17 in
http://www.abanet.org/publiced/prev...-290_RespondentAmCuCongrRacialEqualitynew.pdf
accessed through American Bar Association blog

I found the link to the brief at ABA through the Bloomberg Law Supreme Court page (yes, that Bloomberg!). So this is not some rightwing link. And I will say that truth be known, the Florida statute not only discriminated against blacks, it affected primarily lawabiding blacks owning guns for traditional lawful purposes and had little or no effect on the criminal element.

But the key point is, as Justice Buford admitted in 1941, it was known that the 1893 Act was unconstitutional. What we saw in the 20th Century starting with the 1911 New York Sullivan Act and the efforts in the 1920s by progressive crusaders to promote a national version of the Sullivan Act, is a massive re-education campaign to transform public thinking on the Second Amendment from a "right of the people" to only an authority of the state to regulate an organized militia. Most gun control in the US since then has been built on a false theory and mistaken premise. If viewed constitutionally, all gun control laws but the few statutes aimed at criminal acts malum in se would fall.
 
sauer1911 said:
I hope I'm not wrong, BUT it seems the tide is turning, slowly but forcefully.



With the 2nd amendment foundation in the news, and commercials about the inability for citizens in Chicago and D.C. not being allowed to protect their families, and sadly a very poor performance over the past many years of the President on down thru a majority of his Democratic and a smattering of some Republicans, THERE WILL BE SOME CHANGES MADE.



Sadly we have to fight/legislate to get back our God given rights, but we will. The ebb and flow of things is gonna sweep back these restrictions on our rights and all will be better.



be safe
Click to expand...


Good post! Yes, this is a long way from over, and the liberals won't go away easily. Most will depend on what SCOTUS judges BHO replaces, and who replaces him in the Oval Office.
 
Gun law enforcement in the District of Columbia has always been somewhat strange. I once got a "get out of jail free" letter from the D.C. Metropolitan Police allowing me to bring an M60 machine gun into the District. (It's a long story.)
 
I would like to remind everyone that it was the Second Amendment Foundation that brought this suit. They could probably use your support. The NRA primarily works through the legislative branch, the SAF works through the judicial branch.
 
"Actual notice" eh? I know it is sorely ineffectual and largely a pointless gesture, but a am tempted to go do the national mall version of the "WalMart walk" before the dc gov gets their game on. Probably won't have many days to enjoy it before they find a new stalling tactic but, hey I know where the Chipotle's is!
 
Posted by CoalTrain49:
I would like to remind everyone that it was the Second Amendment Foundation that brought this suit. They could probably use your support.
Click to expand...

Yep. I just sent them $100. They take PayPal.
 
wojownik said:
I think we're just seeing some healthy pragmatism ... Alan Gura himself noted that he expects to see this issue back in court. Again, pragmatically speaking, this is another (big) step in a continuing process.



DC gov is again having a hard time swallowing the concept that they can't have a total ban. Remember, when the Supreme Court struck down DC's total ban on handguns, DC put together a pretty burdensome process for permitting and registering handguns.



Assuming this current court order is not overturned on appeal (or is upheld by the Supremes, if it eventually goes that high), I fully expect DC to put together an onerous process for DC carry permits and recognition of out-of-state carry permits.



Not a naysayer - but as a former DC resident (and NYC resident to boot), I've had some first hand experience with city gov and their shenanigans.
Click to expand...


I agree, I expect them to come back with something ridiculous that will award politically connected people an easy permit and be totally corrupt.

I just hope that we can challenge those laws too. My point is though we need to be optimistic and remember that no matter what happens we made a sent in the armor.
 
Article: DC gun ruling creates National CCW Reciprocity

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




Can anyone answer this?




http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mike-weisser/dc-concealed-carry-guns_b_5626590.html




DC Court's Concealed-Carry Ruling Is Big Win for the NRA


Mike Weisser
Posted: 07/28/2014 10:13 am EDT


The judge not only ordered the District to stop enforcing its concealed-carry ban, but also ordered the District to stop enforcing the same ban against non-residents who want to travel through DC while carrying a gun. This is because one of the plaintiffs, Edward Raymond, was a resident of Maryland and held a concealed-carry permit from his state of residence but did not have any legal authorization to carry a gun in DC. Nevertheless the District Court noted that, "the District of Columbia may not completely bar him, or any other qualified individual, from carrying a handgun in public for self-defense simply because they are not residents of the District."

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.

Every year pro-gun senators and congressmen routinely file bills that call for a reciprocal concealed-carry, much in the same way that a driver's license issued by any one state is valid in every state jurisdiction in the land. Such laws have never gotten to the floor of either chamber for a vote, but Judge Scullin's decision may nullify the need to travel down this legal avenue any more.
Click to expand...
 
The article also said this:



To date the SCOTUS has refused to resolve the disagreements between the different federal circuit courts over how far to extend 2nd Amendment guarantees.

But even if that bench remains silent, the decision by Judge Scullin to extend concealed-carry reciprocity to people who visit but do not live in DC could effectively make concealed-carry the de facto law of the land.
Click to expand...




And this is what wiki says about McDonald v. Chicago:

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), was a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held in a 5-4 decision that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution applies to federal enclaves and protects an individual's right to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. The decision did not address the question of whether the Second Amendment extends beyond federal enclaves to the states,[1] which was addressed later by McDonald v. Chicago (2010). It was the first Supreme Court case to decide whether the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense.[2]

McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010), is a landmark[1] decision of the Supreme Court of the United States that determined whether the Second Amendment applies to the individual states. The Court held that the right of an individual to "keep and bear arms" protected by the Second Amendment is incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and applies to the states. The decision cleared up the uncertainty left in the wake of District of Columbia v. Heller as to the scope of gun rights in regard to the states.
Click to expand...




So hopefully it does?
 
It would be nice but I do not believe it will be the case. All the decision says is they cannot completely prevent non-residents from carrying guns for self defense. Thats a far cry for national reciprocity. What I imagine will happen is if and when DC creates its own permit it will have to also be available to non-residents.
 
§ 22-4504.
(a) No person shall carry within the District of Columbia either openly or concealed on or about their person, a pistol, or any deadly or dangerous weapon capable of being so concealed.
Click to expand...

§ 22-4502. Additional penalty for committing crime when armed.

(a) Any person who commits a crime of violence, or a dangerous crime in the District of Columbia when armed with or having readily available any pistol or other firearm (or imitation thereof) or other dangerous or deadly weapon (including a sawed-off shotgun, shotgun, machine gun, rifle, dirk, bowie knife, butcher knife, switchblade knife, razor, blackjack, billy, or metallic or other false knuckles):
Click to expand...

It appears that the DC code includes a fair number of things other than handguns as "deadly or dangerous weapons".

Are all these things considered OK now?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Gary Slider
  • Locked
NV Honors IL. . . DC Fed Judge Ruling . . . Handgunlaw.us DDoS Attack
Replies
1
Views
565
barnbwt
barnbwt
J
  • Locked
DC gun ruling is on 90 day hold, but prosecutors aren't enforcing carry ban
Replies
0
Views
526
jbrown50
J
I
  • Locked
Latest ruling from D.C.
2
Replies
28
Views
4K
wojownik
wojownik
danez71
  • Locked
Federal court strikes down DC anti-concealed carry law
Replies
20
Views
2K
Elkins45
Elkins45
U
  • Locked
D.C. gives up on ban on carrying guns in public
Replies
11
Views
1K
mgkdrgn
M
Back
Top