DC Permit Process Will Make Your Blood Boil

Status
Not open for further replies.

Gary Slider

Member
Joined
Apr 6, 2006
Messages
596
Location
West Virginia
DC Permit Process Will Make Your Blood Boil (EDITED)

Edited By : Gary Slider.
The info I posted here is not correct. I thought about removing it but it is best that I explain. I screwed Up. I was searching the DC code as I had seen about 3 months ago that they had repealed their Carry permit Law and would no longer issue.

Well an older version of a carry permit law they had popped up and I assumed that was their new one. You know what happens when you "ASSUME!" It made me really mad to read that and I let emotions drive my response. I screwed up and sorry for posting incorrect info on this website. I broke my own rules on confirming before I ran my mouth, I mean fingers on the keyboard. I am leaving the post so you can see how bad I screwed up. Gary Slider
.
.
.
.
.
.


Not long after Heller DC repealed the section of their laws dealing with Carry Licenses. I believed they removed the law to stop more law suits. I was totally wrong. It just took them awhile to get the new edition of their Carry License Law on line. They moved it to a different chapter. This is what will appear on the DC page at handgunlaw.us under "How to Apply for a Permit" It is long but it is worth the read to see how far out of control those in charge of DC are. You can go directly to their who law on firearms at this link:
http://os.dc.gov/os/frames.asp?doc=/os/lib/os/info/odai/title_24/title24_chapter23.pdf
It is a big file so give it time.

Title 24
Chapter 23
2303 Application Requirements For Licenses For Concealed Weapons

2303.1 The residence requirements for a license to carry a concealed weapon shall be as follows:

(a) Applicant shall have a bona fide residence or place of business in the District of Columbia; or
(b) If the applicant does not have a bona fide residence or place of business in the District of Columbia, the applicant shall have a bona fide residence or place of business within the United states, and a license to carry a pistol concealed upon his or her person issued by the lawful authorities of that State or sub-division of the United states.
2303.2 No applicant shall be a person prohibited from possessing a pistol under D.C. Code 22-3201 through 22-32-17 (1981)

2303.6 The Chief of Police or his or her designated agent may require the applicant to submit to psychiatric testing by a psychiatrist, or psychologist selected by the Chief of Police at the expense of the Metropolitan Police Department.

2303.9 Applicant shall comply with the following requirements:

(a) Be over twenty-one (21) years of age;
(b) Be free from physical defects which would impair his or her safe use of the weapon, such as paralysis of hand or arm, poor vision, or lack of coordination due to age;
(c) Have reason to fear injury to his or her person or property or any other proper reason;
(d) Be properly trained and experienced in the use, functioning , and safe operation of the pistol; and
(e) Present a certification from a certified firing range stating that the applicant has satisfactorily completed a course of supervised training approved by the Chief of Police with the weapon from which the licensed is requested and is fully familiar with the use and servicing of the weapon.

2303.10 Applicant shall test fire his or her weapon at the standard police course under Metropolitan Police Department supervision to demonstrate his or her ability to shoot accurately and safely. An additional fee of twenty dollars ($20) shall be required for this service. However, this test and fee shall not be required for license renewals.

2303.11 For the purposes of satisfying the specifications of 2303.9(c), applicant shall allege serious threats of death or serious bodily harm to his or her person or theft or destruction of property in writing, under oath. The applicant shall also allege that the threats are of a nature that the legal possession of a pistol would provide adequate protection.

2303.12 The Chief of Police or his or her designated agent shall conduct and investigation into the allegations of the applicant to determine if the alleged threats are serious and factual and are of a nature that can be protected by carrying a pistol. Factors to be considered include the substance of the alleged threat, whether or not the applicant made a timely report to the police of such threats, and whether or not the applicant has made a sworn complaint to the police in the courts of the District of Columbia.

2303.13 The Chief of Police or his or her designated agent shall find that normal police protection, a commission as a special Police Officer pursuant, to DC Code 4-114 (1981), or at the discretion of the Chief of Police, special police protection is insufficient to protect the applicant from the alleged threat to his or her person or property.

2303.14 An example of “any other proper reason” used to satisfy the requirements of 2303.9(c) may include an application by a parent, son, daughter, sibling or other adult member of the immediate family of the person for the protection of the other person who is physically or mentally incapacitated to a point where he or she cannot act in defense of himself or herself, or his or her property.

Note: There are other requirements they can insist on to obtain a License. You need to read the who law by clicking on the Title/Chapter Link.

Title 24
Chapter 23
2304 Licenses For Concealed Weapons

2304.1 A license granted for concealed weapons shall be valid for one (1) month from the date of issuance.

2304.2 A license may be renewed at the end of one (1) month upon a written showing of continue d need for the license. Applicants who fail to apply for a renewed license before the expiration date, shall be required to pay the application fee for re-application.

2304 .3 Only one (1) weapon shall be carried pursuant to a license. The description and serial number of the weapon shall be part of the license. A new license shall be required for each different weapon carried.

2304.4 At the time of the initial interview with the Chief of Police or his or her designated agent, applicant shall bring the pistol which he or she will carry pursuant to the license and the holster or holsters in which the weapon will be carried.

2304.5 Applicant shall surrender possession of the weapon and holster to the Metropolitan Police Department for a check to determine whether the weapon was reported stolen, to verify that the weapon is safe, in good operating condition, and to obtain test fired ballistics specimens for future comparison if the weapon is fired and to ensure that the holster(s) meets minimum standards for safe carrying of the weapon.

2304.6 If the weapon is reported stolen, the weapon shall not be returned to the applicant until it is properly processed through the Metropolitan Police Department Property Division and a determination of the rightful owner is made.

2304.7 If the pistol is found not to be in good operating condition, the pistol shall be returned to the applicant. No license shall be issued for a pistol which is not in the rightful possession of the applicant or which is not in good operating condition.

2304.8 The pistol for which the license is applied shall be a five (5) or six (6) shot revolver of no greater than a thirty-eight (.38) calibre. Automatic or semi-automatic pistols shall not be approved.

2304.9 Ammunition for the weapon may be no greater in size than a one hundred fifty-eight (158) grain round nose lead bullet and have a velocity of no greater than eight hundred feet (800 ft.) per second. Each weapon shall be carried in a holster approved by the Chief of Police or his or her designated agent.

2304.10 Any intentional false statement made on an application can be grounds for criminal charges for making a false report to the police under this chapter.

2304.11 Any information contained on the application for a license to carry a pistol shall be available to any law enforcement agency for law enforcement purposes. Otherwise, the information contained on the application for a license to carry a pistol shall be considered confidential and shall not be released without the written permission of the applicant.

2304.12 An applicant shall identify all known medical and mental records and sign written release for the Chief of Police or his or her designated agent to obtain the records. These records shall be used only for determining eligibility to be licensed to carry a pistol and for no other purpose.

2304.13 This section shall apply to all applicants for a license to carry a pistol and all renewals of licenses currently possessed.

2304.14 Each licensee shall submit a report to the Chief of Police each time he or she fires his or her weapon. The report shall state the complete details of the shooting of the weapon.

2304.15 An applicant shall register the pistol for which the license will apply.

2304.16 A license to carry a weapon shall be required whether the weapon is to be carried openly or on or about the person in a concealed manner.

2304 .17 Applicants shall first be personally interviewed by the Chief of Police or his or her designated agent at which time applicant shall be fingerprinted and photographed and shall obtain an application form .

2304.18 Applications shall be made in writing only on the forms provided by the Chief of Police or his or her designated agent for that purpose.

2304.19 Applicants shall submit to the Chief of Police or his or her designated agent the following:
(a) A completed application; and
(b) The required fee of two dollars ($2) which is non•refundable.

2304.20 Upon receipt of a duly filed application, the Chief of Police or his or her designated agent shall, within thirty (30) days, do the following:
(a) Determine whether the application shall be approved;
(b) Determine whether the application shall be denied;
(c) Determine whether the applicant shall submit further information including further personal interviews or medical information, if necessary; and
(d) Notify the applicant in writing that his or her application has been approved or disapproved.

2304.21 Upon notification that his or her application has been approved, the Chief of (' Police, or his or her designated agent shall, within ten (10) days, issue the applicant a license to carry a pistol.

2304.22 An issued license may be revoked for any reason which would act as a bar to an original application for a license. In addition, a license may be revoked for misuse of the weapon. Misuse includes, but is not limited to the following:
(a) Firing warning shots; and
(b) Playing or "clowning" with the weapon.

2304.23 Revocation shall be in writing and shall be served in the same manner a civil process in the D.C. Superior Cout.

2304.24 If the Chief of Police or his or her designated agent has not sent notice to the applicant that the application has been approved within thirty (30) days of the date of application, the application shall be presumed to be denied.

2304.25 Application forms shall include a written release of medical records necessary for a determination that the applicant is a suitable person to be licensed to carry a pistol.
 
Last edited:
Nothing in this law surprises me. The City Council has no intention of abiding by the 'spirit of the law' handed down in the Heller ruling; that is, they'll enact only what is absolutely necessary, to barely squeak by and abide by the 'letter of the law'. I wouldn't look for things to change, until other challenges are brought before the SCOTUS.
 
This is a slap in the face to the SCOTUS, methinks federal injunctions and contempt charges are deserving. Who does the D.C. council think they are.
 
This appears to be a list of requirements for CONCEALED CARRY, which is outside the scope of Heller.
 
so... you have to show that there is a credible threat to your life in order to get a 30 day permit, but the police have 30 days to approve the permit and another 10 days to mail it. Plus they have to investigate the threat. God, by the time they do all that, you would have been killed. Typical govt. BS, you have to be in fear for your life due to a serious threat, but they'll take a month or two to give you a license to carry a snubbie with plinking ammo. And they said that each time you fire it you have to fill out a statement, probably means even if it's just at the firing range.
 
This is a license to actually carry a firearm.


The original Heller came about because a regular person could not even legally own a handgun in D.C. at all. Nor could they keep an assembled and loaded long gun in their home. They had to keep legal long guns, the only guns they could have, in a state that rendered them nearly worthless for self defense.



That a jurisdiction that did not even allow handguns or assembled unlocked long guns at all, even in the home, now is being judged for provisions on actually carrying them is certainly an improvement.
There is still certainly significant room for improvement, and just the process for ownership at home is burdensome and exceeds what should be tolerated.

It would appear they do not want regular people actually carrying firearms at all still (no surprise since they didn't want regular people to be able to own them at all), but have a provision for various extreme and unlikely circumstances where they might be inclined to allow (or disallow) it on a rare individual basis.
As a result this should not be viewed as a concealed carry policy intended to actually provide a method to allow widespread carry of firearms by those who jump through proper hoops as is the case in many portions of the nations.
 
Last edited:
I've lived in the DC Metro area for 25 years now, and have worked for the DC Gov't for 10 of those. I have never seen a city so proud of their ghetto's, and bend over backwards to cater to the lazy, the whiny, and the bigoted. On the one hand, I hate being required to disarm myself every fourth day, just to go to work, especially the neighborhood I work in - it's a gritty gang infested liberal wet dream.

On the other hand - I respect their right to decide (through their own voting process) whether or not to have firearms readily available to themselves. I feel they deserve exactly what they get - high victim bearing crime rates, due to the ready availability of easy targets. They continually elect the same morons who appoint the same morons who write laws like these. We've recently had an election for a 'new' mayor - a tenured member of the same city council who pushed for this absurd law to be written as stringently as possible, in an effort to thumb their collective noses at SCOTUS for what they see as an 'intrusion' into their home rule efforts. They even went as far as to sabotage their own statehood efforts, because it contained language which would force them to bring their firearms laws more into line with the national standard.

The residents who make up the city are majority left wing liberal, in the same vein of San Francisco, and they seem to enjoy it their way. They were led to believe that the crack induced violence of the war years ('88-'02), was a result of easy guns, and lackadaisical police enforcement, and possess the classic 'blame the spoon' mentality.

I've got exactly 14 years, 9 months, an 7 days left until retirement - but hey, who's counting?

-tc
 
On the other hand - I respect their right to decide (through their own voting process) whether or not to have firearms readily available to themselves.

If they don't want to have firearms available then they shouldn't buy any, and shut up about it. Even if 99.9% of the population thinks guns should be outlawed and votes accordingly, no one has the right to disarm me, regardless of what authority they claim or uniform they're wearing.
 
Ouch, that's extreme! Better than nothing but definitely not enough. Good luck to anyone stuck in DC or working on improving the situation there.
 
(b) Be free from physical defects which would impair his or her safe use of the weapon, such as paralysis of hand or arm, poor vision, or lack of coordination due to age;

There's no way in holy hell this will withstand a lawsuit.
 
2304.6 If the weapon is reported stolen, the weapon shall not be returned to the applicant until it is properly processed through the Metropolitan Police Department Property Division and a determination of the rightful owner is made.

This one made me laugh.

If you are carrying a stolen gun, you get it back after it's been cycled through Property and the original owner is told. Unless that is transcripted wrong.

Do like how they'll give you back your defective revolver, though.

Since both open and concealed carry are combined, and you have to submit all holster you intend to use; do you think it'd confuse them to have a Rossi in .32long colt and a Mountie-style flap holster?

Something tells me that the private security goonery are not going to have to surrender their glöcke and desert eagles and the like.
 
If you are carrying a stolen gun, you get it back after it's been cycled through Property and the original owner is told. Unless that is transcripted wrong.


No, what it means is that if your gun is reported stolen or is stolen and the police recover it or take it from you as a result, when you apply (hence "applicant") to have it returned by going through the proper procedures they can take their time and give you the run around.
As it is "properly processed" by the special "Property Division" and an 'investigation' is done to make "a determination of the rightful owner" you get to wait for as long as that takes.

Since guns have to be registered in D.C. it is automatically obvious if a D.C. resident "applicant" aka someone who has filled out forms with their name and address and shown identification has that gun registered to them.
They have a database of registered D.C. gun owners and handguns, rifles, and shotguns, are registered so the only reason for adding such an unnecessary line is to allow them to discretionarily hold on to firearms for as long as they feel is necessary under the guise of such procedures.
The registry is at their fingertips if they wanted to quickly verify legal ownership.
 
Last edited:
Well, it was the use of the word "until."

If "2304.6 If the weapon is reported stolen, the weapon shall not be returned to the applicant until it is properly processed through the Metropolitan Police Department Property Division and a determination of the rightful owner is made."

read as

"2304.6 If the weapon is reported stolen, the weapon shall not be returned to the applicant, and it will be properly processed through the Metropolitan Police Department Property Division and a determination of the rightful owner is made."

That would make more grammatical sense.

The underlying reality that this is an infringement upon DC citizens' rights remains. The fact that, if transcribed correctly with the "until" in place, they could not be bothered to even check the grammar, let alone that possession of a stolen weapon is, prima facie, a crime just adds to the inanity.
 
And the whole point is nearly mute as there is no, nor will there ever be, a place to legally -buy- a gun in DC.

There is -one- FFL willing to do business with the general public (that the city council hasn't figured how to put out of business yet) ... and he only does transfers ... at $125 a pop.
 
And the whole point is nearly mute as there is no, nor will there ever be, a place to legally -buy- a gun in DC.

There is -one- FFL willing to do business with the general public (that the city council hasn't figured how to put out of business yet) ... and he only does transfers ... at $125 a pop.
And is also firmly in the Brady Groups hip pocket - therefore, he never will do a transfer. As there aren't any firearms stores in the city, there aren't any places to buy new, or used firearms, and you therefore must go through him...
 
If they don't want to have firearms available then they shouldn't buy any, and shut up about it. Even if 99.9% of the population thinks guns should be outlawed and votes accordingly, no one has the right to disarm me, regardless of what authority they claim or uniform they're wearing.
And yet - that's just what they've accomplished!
 
Is it me or did the just open their selves up to legal action for age and disability discrimination?

Not really the fight to take up first. They would probably do better with that argument than many others. Comparing it to vehicle licensing where some people are no longer safe enough to drive and lose their license and ability to drive as a result of disability or age related problems.

Firearms are of course a right in a different category, and even a blind person can learn to carry one and use one safely at contact distances (where they can feel their target). It certainly beats a knife.
We even had a neat video posted recently of a guy with no arms shooting a semi-auto pistol with just his feet.
He then proceeds to load a new magazine with rounds:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tlMz2sCDCA4

However he didn't start out with those abilities. That came with a lot of practice and acquired dexterity. Practice he never would have had if he had been banned from ownership due to his disability or inability to demonstrate safe operation of his firearm.
I imagine fumbling and trying different grips and methods of operation with his toes happened in the privacy of his own home with his legally owned firearm before he was able to safely use it and could demonstrate that to others.
 
Last edited:
After working 17yrs in downtown DC I can personally say unless you are "somebody" you won't be able to purchase nor keep a firearm. I can remember buying a Savage 22/410 on G St., NW in '64 and never again will that happen. I also remember Kennedy's bodyguards with full auto weapons. At that time is was "suppose" to be 10yrs mandatory for a "nobody" like me to get caught with any firearm. A convicted felon or "community leader" would barely get a slap on the wrist.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top