Court spanks DC’s “good reason” CCW licensing
According to the Washington Post, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit blocked Washington DC’s concealed carrying permitting system that required gun owners to prove that they have a “good reason” for needing to carry a weapon concealed in the city, you know, other than the fact that they live in a crime-ridden cesspool.
“The good-reason law is necessarily a total ban on most D.C. residents’ right to carry a gun in the face of ordinary self-defense needs,” wrote Judge Thomas B. Griffith, who was joined by Judge Stephen F. Williams.
“Bans on the ability of most citizens to exercise an enumerated right would have to flunk any judicial test.”
The court’s rejection of the District’s permitting system is the latest legal blow for city officials who have been forced to rewrite gun-control regulations ever since the Supreme Court in 2008 used a D.C. case to declare a Second Amendment right to gun ownership. The ruling follows proposals from Republican members of Congress that would require the District to honor concealed-carry permits from other states in the wake of a June shooting at a GOP congressional baseball practice.
From Fox News;
John R. Lott, Jr. of the Crime Prevention Research Center called the decision huge.
Right now, there are about 124 concealed handgun permit holders in D.C., Lott told Fox News. “If D.C. were like the 42 right-to-carry states, they would have about 48,000 permits. Right now D.C. prevents the most vulnerable people, particularly poor blacks who live in high crime areas of D.C., from having any hope of getting a permit for protection.
Category: Gun Grabbing Fascists
Let the moaning, wailing and gnashing of the teeth begin! THERE WILL BE BLOOD IN THE STREETS! PEOPLE WILL BE SHOOTING EACH OTHER OVER PARKING SPACES!!! Did I miss anything? Oh, Right, THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!
And “It’s all Obama’s fault”. Oh wait, it kinda is.
LOL!!
They have been screwing around with this since Heller came down. Sorry guys, you lost, time to obey the law, like all the rest of us. It is not technically Obama’s fault, because it has been this way since the 70’s. But his attitude infused many in DC, in that, we don’t have to comply.
“A man is nursing a gunshot wound after a fight with another man in a post office parking lot in southeast Houston.
The fight started outside the U.S. Postal Service office in the 4000 block of Broadway around 8 p.m. Wednesday, HPD detective C. Sharp said.
According to initial reports, the two men were fighting over a handicapped parking spot. During the dispute, one man shot the other man.
The injured man was taken to Ben Taub General Hospital where he was listed in stable condition.
The gunman has a concealed carry license, police said.”
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
http://www.chron.com/neighborhood/pearland/crime-courts/article/Fight-in-post-office-parking-lot-leads-to-shooting-11187100.php
So there’s always that one asshole. What’s your point? Should my DL be revoked because some idiot got busted for DUI, even though it wasn’t me and I don’t drink?
If you don’t like what the Constitution says, there’s a process to change it. If enough people agree with your complaint, good for you. If not, tough shit.
TOW,
I think Texas Nomad just forgot to add the (/sarc) tag at the end of his post.
Isn’t that right,TN?……..TN?
Calm down, nobody is coming for your guns.
I’m calm. I’m just rebutting you. Must you be a sanctimonious prick? One Lars is more than enough.
You don’t live in a Looney Tune State like I do. Yes, they are coming for our guns. Our Police have said they can’t wait to start taking our guns. Our Attorney General is mulling over when to start confiscation. If you live in Texas, you have it good. So, please don’t condescend to me and give me that tired old line. They are out to take our guns.
I mean, we’re discussing it in the context, literally, of an article about a court shooting down another gun restriction statute under Heller, which happens regularly. Most restrictions won’t pass muster. Even a gun grabber statute would likely be enjoined from enforcement pending court review.
I just don’t see a political issue with a bigger disconnect between what is actually happening in courts and statehouses, and the perception of what is happening. They can’t even get universal background checks passed – how close do you think they are from having a gun confiscation force?
One Congress controlled by people like d. feinstein, et al.
A super majority of Progressives in both Legislative Houses in California IS out to take citizens’ guns AND ammunition. And something like 60+% of my fellow citizens think they’ll be safer as a result. Texas Nomad, you’re not listening. Maybe we should trade places? I’ll keep you guns safe for you 😉
Here is a suggestion for ammo. Plan a trip to Utah- Moab for instance. as you come back via I-80 stop at every Wal-mart and Cabellas you can find and buy all the ammunition you want. You never have to tell anyone – especially if you pay with cash. Because that is what every smart gun owning California citizen is doing right now. As far as gun confiscation – the only confiscation which is going to happen is if you end up in a criminal investigation unrelated to your gun ownership. At that point the law having to do with registration will be a problem – but remember most gun owners are very law abiding, they rarely end up in conflicts with police.
Also cops are to busy chasing all the “non-violent” criminals and the people who are trying to steal other peoples weed with the legalization of pot.
Something else; California is not leading and wining in the 2nd Amendment court cases – all of these attempts are it’s elites flailing – trying to hang onto and extend a has-been time from the Clinton presidency and prevent the citizens the same rights as others have garnered in other states.
But all the data show that persons with CCW are the most law-abiding, Tex. Here ya go:
http://www.dailywire.com/news/8255/report-concealed-carry-permit-holders-are-most-law-aaron-bandler
One good reason this is true is that it is a given that if you pull your weapon and shoot someone, for even the best and most justifiable of reasons, your ass is going to get sued. And in many jurisdictions, you’re going to get to spend at least a night or two with the infamous Tiny and Thor. And if you live in a Democrat controlled jurisdiction, YOU, not the bad guy may be the one going to prison.
I can’t speak for anywhere else, but that is certainly not true locally. In the example to the “People will be shooting one another of parking spaces” mock hysteria, there wasn’t really an on the spot question that self-defense hadn’t been an issue.
Personally, I trust the police’s judgment on making those calls more than Joe Gunowner.
Thinking now of multiple cops I know, some of them high-ranking, who provoke me to say the following:
“The State of California says that, as a law-abiding citizen with no criminal record, history of violence, or mental instability, I MUST be disarmed in the name of public safety…but they’ll GIVE that asshole a gun!”
That is probably true of some, but I love cops and definitely like the ones I know, and feel safer with them around.
I think they make mistakes, and may on this, but I don’t know if that outweighs the tremendous danger it entails doing their job with so many people having access to firearms that couldn’t responsibly handle a firecracker.
I know a lot of good cops, have a few for relatives, too. That doesn’t make LEOs any less human or less fallible than anyone else. Our society is one of checks and balances, and law enforcement, as any good cop will tell you, is not exempt.
This is especially true today, as the “militarization of police” is a real concern. How many of my rights should be subject to the fickle whims of a politically-appointed police chief? How about the two rather embarrassing incidents during the Dorner episode where LA-area cops emptied their magazines at people who looked nothing like their suspect without any kind of warning?
Don’t misunderstand, I’m pretty pro-LE, but blind faith serves nobody well.
I know I will be wasting my time telling TN about those FBI statistics that show CCW holders are ~10X more law abiding than cops or that an innocent bystander is ~5X more likely to be shot by the po-po than a CCW holder.
Consider a 2X2 box. Along one side it is labeled Athoritah, high and low. Along the other, it is labeled Accountability, high and low. Cops operate in the high Authoritah, low Accountability box. CCW holders are in the low Authority, high Accountability box. Who do you honestly think will be more careful about using deadly force?
Oh, never mind, TN feels safer with armed cops. My bad, bringing facts to a feels fight.
Tell you what, you get rid of all your guns and wait for the a.h.’s to come into your house and threaten your family, then being the pussy you are and not protecting your family, you can call the police whose judgement you so value and wait for 30 minutes or so for them to come around……how does that work for you precious?
By the way, I know lawyers that are making a killing from spreading fear among gun enthusiasts about the eminent lawsuits and denial of bail in scenarios where guns are used lawfully.
Gun trusts & Firearms liability insurance were created wholesale by lawyers marketing products that have essentially no value.
Knowing the costs of a potential lawsuit would be at MINIMUM well in excess of any ready cash I would have on hand, it makes as much sense to be insured for that as it does against damage from a hurricane, even if Houston has not been hit with one for almost 9 years.
Oh, and that “relax, no one is coming” etc – did it ever occur to you that if we don’t push back, that the eventual result WILL be people coming for our guns? Go read about the laws being passed in California. Read NY’ SAFE act. Get back to me when you have a coherent answer.
Counterpoint – for what they charge you for firearms liability, it is essentially conceding that the likelihood of you using the policy is exceptionally rare or extremely limited in the scope of representation.
Apparently you have never been involved in a lawsuit and had to pay attorney fees. Lawsuits take years to get to trial and you are paying all that time. Yes, I have insurance against that eventuality. As far as trusting the Police? Please, they want to make an arrest. I have a CCW which I have had for 35 years and I have never committed a crime. My friends who have them are the most law-abiding people I know. Are there outliers, yes, but they are few an far between. It takes too much time and effort where I live to get one to jeopardize it.
Outliers is my exact point with the liability insurance! Its invoked so rarely the attorneys selling it make a handsome profit. Their level of representation if it is invoked is extremely limited.
It happened at the post office.
Big fucking deal.
That agency gave us the term “going postal” for a reason.
Carry the fuck on.
(Yes, I read the article and saw what they were fighting over, so…)
A concealed carry holder has a lower incidence of breaking the law than any other group including police.
I could show you an example of about anything that is an exception to the rule. Why did you even bring this up? One guy drove drunk and killed someone last night, lets ban automobiles. Yesterday a kid drowned in a swimming pool, lets ban those. etc etc etc
In 2015, Vermont (my home state) had 1.6 murders/manslaughter per 100,000. 48th out of 50 states being beaten by NH and Hawaii. Vermont also has Constitutional Concealed Carry which means there is no prohibition on carrying by anyone, no permit needed, no one your have to ask permission of. Odd….
You left out, “SHOOTOUT AT THE OK CORRAL”.
I don’t see near enough info in that post to make a decision (no, i didn’t read the link) Just because the initial argument was over something stupid, doesn’t mean the shooting couldn’t be justified.. It all depends on who escalated it, and to what extent. If the shooter ended up in a position that he feared for his life, it could well be justified… of course, it could also be that he’s an idiot… As i said, not enough info in the post to make that determination
Ok, I read the link, it added absolutely nothing…So still not enough info
Thank you DBW, I did!!!! Wait, IT WILL BE LIKE THE GUNFIGHT AT THE OK CORRAL!!!!!
Now I feel better!
Just say “no” to “Jim Crow”.
Maybe I’m interpreting this incorrectly, but the article states: “The ruling follows proposals from Republican members of Congress that would require the District to honor concealed-carry permits from other states in the wake of a June shooting at a GOP congressional baseball practice”.
The issue of Conceal Carry in the District is different than Virginia, so I’m not sure where the connection is made since Steve Scalise was shot at a baseball field in Alexandria (not in D.C.)
It’d be nice if DC would honor conceal carry licenses from other states, but I just don’t see that ever happening.
They probably threw that in for color. More than likely a coincidence and it is the MSM.
IIRC, none of the May-Issue states honor other states’ CCW permits.
It could stand as legal precedent for the right to bear.
This could have major impact on all those “May Issue” jurisdictions out there in La-La-Land where you are Whitey.
I never thought I’d see trannys being banned from the military either.
I think this court is schizophrenic considering the California case they just refused to hear.
The tie in is that DC residents are citizens of the US and covered by our Constitution just like anyone else Federal area or not.
If law enforcement in Chicago – er, WDC, weren’t so frakkin’ incompetent that they look WORSE than any other metropolitan police, this might be a lesser issue. Their chief of police in an idiot control freak who probably wets her pants twice a day.
So what would change if the law-abiding citizens of Chicago and WDC were REQUIRED to own guns for self protection? Well, I do know that Eddie Johnson’s head would not explode, but mare Rahmbo would cry on camera. That would be fun to watch.
“mare Rahmbo”
Chuckle.
Some things are not typos. 😉
If I am correct, the USC should apply to D.C. Last I checked it was part of the USA. Why can’t the POTUS just sign an EO and permit CCW in D.C. With an EO he would be within his authority, since the right to bear arms is already part of the USC.
The en banc panel will meet and throw this ruling out most ricky tick; seen this movie before. It’ll take a ruling from SCOTUS to finally sort this out, and they’ve been remarkably reluctant to do so.
Ginsburg doesn’t want her name attached to it. Sotomayor is a goddamn new-world-order socialist. Never mind Kagan.
Didn’t Ginsburg promise to leave the country if Trump was elected? She’s probably just having a hard time finding a moving company…
Yeah, Ginsburg said she was going to retire and move to New Zealand if President Trump got elected and so far she has reneged like all those pampered pissy-assed celebrities.
And when new Zealand heard about that, they sent her a strongly worded letter saying there was enough ugly in New Zealand already and she would be denied a Visa.
New Zealand called and said they already have enough moldering corpses, but if we must, please leave her at the low tide mark and wait for the the salty croc to swim by.
D.C. Government will continue to slow roll to the degree they can get away with it..
This is the only “Good Reason” a citizen needs.
District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), is a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held in a 5–4 decision that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense …
From Heller:
Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.
The Second Amendment, like any amendment or right, is not absolute.
Not absolute but it is universal meaning that local jurisdictions may not limit it virtually out of existence as they have tried to do in so many states with extremely limited permit issuing. That is the issue here.
I believe you are missing my point.
Mr Hardin says the “only good reason” is the Heller decision.
The Heller decision doesn’t support Mr. Hardin’s claim.
The question in this case really boiled down to whether there was a compelling governmental interest in the restrictions the city tried to place on permits. The “show good reason” thinking is backwards. Citizens do not have to show cause to exercise their rights, but rather the government has to show a reason to restrict them.
That text was written by Scalia’s own hand. There are some great Youtube videos of him explaining it.
If I understand the reasoning of the plaintiff and the two “for” judges, the central issue is that the strictness of the “may issue” CCW in effect acts as a total ban when you consider all the things you can’t do (basically move and fire arm in and around the city) without having a CCW.
The dissenting judges argument was pretty weak and centered on the fact that DC was special case due to being the seat of government and extra security concerns. She had also upheld the city’s ban on firearms many times over the years. Its funny to read her reasoning as its had to change from case to case as the Supreme Court keeps call BS on her. First time she reasoned the 2nd Amendment only applied to the states and DC wasn’t a state, next it was that it only applied to member of the “organized” militia.
Yea so if DC is such a security concern get rid of the local gangs, welfare population and others who make it such a dangerous shithole. I say, dump them on Haiti or Cuba or just in the open ocean. I’m fed up with the courts and liberals dancing around the truth that cities like DC, Chicago, etc, are ruined by lawless thugs and not law abiding citizens and they haven’t the backbone to call a spade a spade and start truly cleaning up the streets.
The problem with getting a conceal license in D.C. is the police department slow rolls the process and makes it virtually impossible to get one.
HOORAY ! ! !
Now, law-abiding white people in the mostly black District of Columbia will have a legal means of self-protection.
This probably won’t have any effect on homicide statistics since almost all of the murders are currently being done with illegal firearms.
Also, this might even make things a wee bit more difficult for terrorist attacks and political assassination attempts, as legally armed private citizens can provide an additional line of prevention and defense.