A victory, for the moment.
"A federal appeals court on Tuesday struck down a District of Columbia gun-control measure that the court said is essentially an outright ban in violation of the Second Amendment.
D.C. requires gun owners to have a “good reason” to obtain a concealed carry permit.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit struck down the regulation as too restrictive in a 2-1 decision, The Washington Post reported.
“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,” Judge Thomas B. Griffith wrote, according to the paper.
“Bans on the ability of most citizens to exercise an enumerated right would have to flunk any judicial test.”
Judge Stephen F. Williams joined Griffith in the decision.
The decision deals another legal blow to efforts by city officials to rewrite gun regulations since the Supreme Court declared a Second Amendment right to gun ownership in a 2008 D.C. gun case, the paper reported.
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.
The lone dissenter, Judge Karen Henderson, said the district’s regulation “passes muster” because of the city’s unique security challenges as the nation’s capital and because it does not affect the right to keep a firearm at home.
Gun rights groups and Republican attorneys general from more than a dozen states told the court that the District’s system is unconstitutional because the typical law-abiding citizen could not obtain a permit, the paper reported.
City officials could ask all the judges on the circuit to rule on the matter, if they elect to appeal the decision."
I missed that part of the second amendment. Will have to re-read I suppose ...
Here's another good article.
I am neither here nor there.
Am I being overly optimistic in hoping that this could lead to Constitutional Carry in all 50 states (and territories)?
"It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts." Sherlock Holmes
In my humble opinion that will never come by judicial decree. If it comes it will be by legislative action.
|Step by step walk the thousand mile road|
Being in northern Virginia and occasionally venturing into the District of Columbia (DC) I decided to reexamine my prospects for getting a concealed pistol license (CPL) issued by DC. I've examined this issue before, and concluded (as vast numbers of others have) that DC only issues CPLs to the elitists.
But the decision in BRIAN WRENN, ET AL., v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, ET AL struck down a lower court decision and injunction upholding the DC requirement to provide "... either a good reason to fear injury to themselves or their property, or any other proper reason" in order to get a DC CPL.
I just got off the phone with the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) Firearms Licensing Division who informed me that MPD is continuing to require "... applicants to explain their need for a Concealed Carry Pistol License by demonstrating either a good reason to fear injury to themselves or their property, or any other proper reason."
The person I spoke with said this was based on instructions received from the Office of the Attorney General for the District of Columbia.
The only written instructions I could find was the DC Attorney General's press release, dated July 25, 2017 on this ruling. That press release states:
So, at least for the time being, DC continues to enforce a law and regulation where the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit concluded that law and regulation was unconstitutional!. The Court even came right out and stated its reasoning:
I have a call into the Office of the DC Attorney General asking when they plan to file their request for a full en banc hearing.
So, at least for the time being, and in this specific instance we have a governmental authority refusing to follow a binding legal decision, absent any stay or injunction from the entire DC Appeals Court or the SCOTUS.
I think it is nice to know that DC is a zone where the Constitution has so little meaning. It gives me another reason not to venture there.
Here is a link where you can read the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit decision in BRIAN WRENN, ET AL., v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, ET AL
Nice is overrated
And people wonder why I carry a SIG P320
Death to Terrorists
Even after a Full SCOTUS decision, it will take at least a generation before the police department is retrained to believe that Citizens are allowed to have a weapon.
Have you ever found a Smart DC Cop or Prosecutor?
|Now in Florida|
Appealed to the DC Circuit en banc
.....and then promptly banned by judicial action...
"For certainly no legislation can be supposed more wholesome and necessary in the founding of a free, self-governing commonwealth, fit to take rank as one of the coordinate States of the Union, than that which seeks to establish it on the basis of the idea of the family, as consisting in and springing from the union for life of one man and one woman in the holy estate of matrimony"; United States Supreme Court Ruling, Murphy v. Ramsey 1885.
The hardest trail leads to the highest peak.
"A liberal is a person whose immediate interests are not at stake."
|Powered by Social Strata|