Washington D.C. proposes harsh new ‘may-Issue’ concealed carry law

[SicSTi]

lol...

That's a good one. this is congress we're talking about.

Sorry just had to quote this again
Congress can't even tie their shoes together at this point let alone agree on something.

 

[TheSpark]

I hope we soon see the courts do away with all may issue states. May issue means no issue in almost all of them so it is just a way for them to skirt the law.

 

[limbsonagrizzly]

Problem is, St least two Courts of Appeals have found this practice (may issue, cause needed) to be perfectly reasonable.

Indeed, Kachalsky and that other case in Maryland? I believe this upheld the "good cause" requirement under intermediate scrutiny.

Didn't Posner in his opinion criticize the other circuits for their reasoning?

 

[rgrimm01]

Interesting that the White House has an intruder and the first thing they do is place more armed people on foot on the grounds. Not unreasonable, just interesting in that they would deny their citizens the same right of protection without jumping through insurmountable hoops.

 

[prescut]

this just got thru the courts for DC and now they try this crap. this upsets judges. when california got so restrictive the 3rd court of appeals made ca a shall issue state. maybe DC is next.

 

[JeremiahJohnson]

“The proposed legislation fails to comply with the court’s order, which requires any licensing scheme to treat the carrying of handguns as a right rather than a privilege doled out at the police’s discretion,” Gura said in an emailed statement to Guns.com Wednesday. “The court followed the logic of the federal appellate court which struck down California’s ‘good cause’ requirement, and there is no reason to expect a different result here.” The case in Gura’s reference, Richards v. Prieto, challenged Yolo County, California Sheriff Ed Prieto’s policies on granting concealed carry handgun permits. In a decision by the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals handed down in March, a three-judge panel found the sheriff’s policy to be unconstitutional..."

That case is still not fully decided; still waiting on ad-hoc to see if it will be taken any further.


So...not to throw a turd on the table, but citizens of DC do not have voter representation in congress (DC Voting Rights - Analysis of Voting Rights in Washington, DC). So, what we 50 states take for granted, those citizens do not enjoy. DC is extremely left so on one hand I'm glad they have no representation, but on the other hand they probably should. They could add them to Virginia or something perhaps...

Anyway, I'll believe the "may issue" will change to "shall issue" in DC when pigs sprout wings.

 

[actaeon277]

“The proposed legislation fails to comply with the court’s order, which requires any licensing scheme to treat the carrying of handguns as a right rather than a privilege doled out at the police’s discretion,” Gura said in an emailed statement to Guns.com Wednesday. “The court followed the logic of the federal appellate court which struck down California’s ‘good cause’ requirement, and there is no reason to expect a different result here.” The case in Gura’s reference, Richards v. Prieto, challenged Yolo County, California Sheriff Ed Prieto’s policies on granting concealed carry handgun permits. In a decision by the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals handed down in March, a three-judge panel found the sheriff’s policy to be unconstitutional..."

That case is still not fully decided; still waiting on ad-hoc to see if it will be taken any further.


So...not to throw a turd on the table, but citizens of DC do not have voter representation in congress (DC Voting Rights - Analysis of Voting Rights in Washington, DC). So, what we 50 states take for granted, those citizens do not enjoy. DC is extremely left so on one hand I'm glad they have no representation, but on the other hand they probably should. They could add them to Virginia or something perhaps...

Anyway, I'll believe the "may issue" will change to "shall issue" in DC when pigs sprout wings.

That's because it was never intended to be occupied year round, or become the monstrosity it has.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

D.C. Council votes, reluctantly, to allow public to carry concealed weapons - The Washington Post

DC Council reluctantly votes to allow concealed carry, but with a burdensome permit system.

 

[Redhorse]

Isn't Washington D.c. ultimately under the control of Congress? Couldn't they step in and say this legislation is nonsense?

Congress do something?............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

 

[limbsonagrizzly]

It's good to see that Alan Gura will continue to litigate this in the courts.

Given how different Circuit courts are interpreting the Second Amendent/Heller/McDonald as it relates to bearing arms in public (e.g., "good and substantial reason"), I wouldn't be surprised to see SCOTUS grant certiaori down the road.

 

[sonny27]

Will DC be held in contempt for gun carry law? - DC News FOX 5 DC WTTG

 

[Bill of Rights]

Will DC be held in contempt for gun carry law? - DC News FOX 5 DC WTTG

And if the city is held in contempt, so what? When a person is so charged, they are jailed or fined an amount of money or both (for a set time or until they apologize to the judge or whatever), right?

And if a city is in contempt, no politician will be jailed, and any fine will be paid from the taxes extorted from the people who live there, not paid personally by the guilty parties. I'm not seeing this as a consequence they will even notice, let alone be deterred by its effect.

Now... if Scullin orders that the fines be paid personally by the mayor and city council members individually, they might sit up and take notice. I'm not sure they can be incarcerated for this, but that would get results. Better still to order that they spend 30 days living in a bad neighborhood, without police protection... as the people they rule over have to live.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[opus1776]

And if the city is held in contempt, so what? When a person is so charged, they are jailed or fined an amount of money or both (for a set time or until they apologize to the judge or whatever), right?

And if a city is in contempt, no politician will be jailed, and any fine will be paid from the taxes extorted from the people who live there, not paid personally by the guilty parties. I'm not seeing this as a consequence they will even notice, let alone be deterred by its effect.

Now... if Scullin orders that the fines be paid personally by the mayor and city council members individually, they might sit up and take notice. I'm not sure they can be incarcerated for this, but that would get results. Better still to order that they spend 30 days living in a bad neighborhood, without police protection... as the people they rule over have to live.

Blessings,
Bill

Bill, if Scullin reallly wanted to make a point by the contempt order, he should declare the new carry law unconstitutional, then say that no permit is required..... (I know it's a pipe dream.......)








======================================
"Nothing tastes as good as skinny feels" K. Moss
You can NEVER be too rich or too thin.
Life is not a journey, but a series of unplanned detours...
Perfection: is not a goal---it's a demanded expectation.

 

[CMB69]

... However, folks should ALSO remember that Indiana (and a LOT of other States) ALSO used to be 'may issue'. My first permit was finally issued after hiring an attorney and taking some number of months.

When was that? I received my first LTCH in '80 or '81. No problem at all.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

When was that? I received my first LTCH in '80 or '81. No problem at all.

1980 is when it changed. Prior to the court ruling you had to have a "proper reason". And the superintendent could decide if self defense was a proper reason.
http://www.constitution.org/2ll/bardwell/schubert_v_debard.txt

 

[actaeon277]

D.C. Gun Carry Applications More Than Triple in Wake of Federal Court Ruling | Washington Free Beacon