tyeo098
Member
HOLY BALLS.
At least until the injunction is filed tomorrow!!!
At least until the injunction is filed tomorrow!!!
Or any special tax placed on firearms or ammunition at any level of commerce.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.
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.
Summary of Argument, folio 2, page 17 inI 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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
§ 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.
§ 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):