Judge’s ruling allows concealed-carry for D.C. gun owners, shoots down police objections
Source: Washington Times
Judges ruling allows concealed-carry for D.C. gun owners, shoots down police objections
By Andrea Noble - The Washington Times - Thursday, May 28, 2015
A federal judge on Thursday denied a short-term stay on a decision that blocked the District from enforcing a key provision of its restrictive concealed-carry laws prompting the city to notify gun owners who had been denied a carry permit that they now can obtain one.
U.S. District Judge Frederick J. Scullin Jr. left open the possibility the District could obtain a stay pending appeal of his previous ruling, which called the citys requirement that gun owners demonstrate a good reason to obtain a permit unconstitutional. He set a hearing on the matter for July 7.
In the meantime, the ruling means the Metropolitan Police Department may end up issuing concealed carry permits to applicants who previously had been denied because they could not demonstrate they face a specific threat of injury or harm.
The gun owners who brought the case against the city received phone calls from MPD on Thursday advising them to come to the departments Firearms Registration Section for approval of their concealed carry permits, said Alan Gottlieb, vice president of the Second Amendment Foundation, which backed the lawsuit.
Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/may/28/judges-ruling-allows-concealed-carry-for-dc-gun-ow/
(Sorry for the source, it's the only news service with this information I could find, unfortunately.)
onehandle
(51,122 posts)sarisataka
(18,770 posts)People's Rights > Government's authority to arbitrarily deny Rights.
Though some will decry this ruling because of gunz it is really about what the Government (at any level) can prohibit.
When you go to vote you do not have to explain to someone why you wish to vote. And after said explanation you cannot have a faceless bureaucrat say "Nope, not good enough. Go home, try again when you can show a better reason to vote."
There are many objective, and legal, reasons why gun permits can be restricted and kept out of people's hands. Arbitrary decisions are not one of them, nor should they be for any right- or privilege. Could you imagine the uproar if DOT required people to show a reason why they should be issued a driver's license... And still could refuse to issue without explanation?
Psephos
(8,032 posts)daleanime
(17,796 posts)friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)Perhaps you might be so good as to point it out for our edification?
TIA
daleanime
(17,796 posts)I've given up on any hope for improvement and will just take note as people continue to die....
Guess that means you win, happy?
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)You need to stop mistaking lurid media accounts for statistics.
Violent crime and murder rates are at the lowest levels in decades- oh wait, I forgot...
"Improvement" for your sort doesn't mean lower crime rates, it means stricter gun
control laws, whether or not they coincide with lower crime rates
I marvel at a group of people that suffer real anhedonia over lower rates of
crime and violence because said declines haven't been accompanied by their desired social
legislation...
sarisataka
(18,770 posts)friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)S'okay, though- we all understand what repeated, grinding failure can do to people.
You lot ought to consider that repeating actions that have previously
failed (and expecting different results) might not actually be the way to get what you want...
alp227
(32,052 posts)As passed by the D.C. Council, the Districts new carry legislation remains among the strictest in the nation, requiring applicants to state good reason to carry a weapon in order to obtain a permit from police, matching laws in Maryland, New Jersey and New York.
However, in a 23-page opinion, U.S. District Judge Frederick J. Scullin Jr. ruled that condition known as the good reason/proper reason requirement still impinges on Plaintiffs Second Amendment right to bear arms, because it fails to target dangerous people or specifically how or where individuals carry weapons.
Scullin is a GHW Bush nominee to his bench.
skamaria
(329 posts)What could possibly go wrong? You don't need to see MadMax just read the papers.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)You think it's law abiding citizens causing the high crime rate in DC?
Skittles
(153,193 posts)idiots
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)Relaxing concealed weapons laws would be disastrous!
And these fears were subsequently shown to be unfounded, while all along violent crime
and murder rates in the US declined:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x377269#377384
Published: Sunday, February 06, 2011 By TAYLOR DUNGJEN
I think the consensus is that folks want them so they can, if they so desire, carry a concealed handgun to protect themselves, their loved ones or acquaintances, Erie County Sheriff Capt. Paul Sigsworth said.
When the law first went into effect, opponents argued there would be more crime and weapons assaults. That has largely proven to not be the case, Lorain County Sheriff Phil Stammitti said.
We havent had any big problems since the law took effect in 2004, Stammitti said.
Sigsworth said Erie County hasnt had any major problems either.
We have had very few issues with the folks issued licenses through our agency, Sigsworth said. And the vast majority appear to be law abiding ...
http://www.morningjournal.com/general-news/20110206/locked-and-loaded-concealed-carry-grows-as-critics-fears-of-bloodbath-proven-wrong?viewmode=fullstory
And a nice bonus:
THE EDITOR'S COLUMN: Facts top feelings, change views on gun issues
Published: Sunday, February 06, 2011
AFTER reading through reporter Taylor Dungjens front page story today on the relatively trouble-free growth of concealed carry of handguns in Ohio, I have to admit I was wrong.
Back in 2004, when Ohios law allowing licensed concealed carry of handguns was adopted, I was among the opponents who thought it would make public shoot-outs common and fill the streets with blood.
As this newspapers Editorial Page editor in 2004, whenever I wrote a negative opinion piece about concealed carry, it got support from some readers who shared the same feeling, but it also got a flood of responses countering my arguments. The response from gun supporters was loud and spirited, to put it politely, and full of factual information. And the difference between opinion based on feeling and opinion based on fact, over time, made all the difference in changing my viewpoint.
The facts showed that concealed carry did not bring Ohio more crime, more bloodshed or a Wild West atmosphere. In fact, none of that has happened anywhere in the United States as legal concealed carry has become the rule rather than the exception in the state laws across the land.
Yes, in a perfect world, there would be no need for guns. But the world is not perfect, and never will be perfect. Two-legged predators will always be a threat to good citizens. The law forbids felons from possessing guns, but criminals ignore the law, so it is only proper that law-abiding people be allowed to possess and to carry a weapon if they meet the rules in the law.
http://www.morningjournal.com/general-news/20110206/the-editors-column-facts-top-feelings-change-views-on-gun-issues?viewmode=fullstoryext
After that was posted in 2011, two more states (Wisconsin and Illinois) went shall issue-
and murder and violent crime rates continued to decline
I have a pretty good idea about what will "go wrong". DC residents will get permits and
the same sorts of things will happen that happened, oh, just about every place else
that's liberalized their gun control laws-and people will notice that crime and murder
didn't rise
And that would be bad for culture warriors- but good for everyone else...
Recursion
(56,582 posts)hack89
(39,171 posts)what could possibly go wrong with letting the police decide who can and cannot exercise their constitutional rights?
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)Controllers of all sorts get the sads when people resist them:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=167671
petronius
(26,603 posts)saying that DC should be 'shall issue.' It seems similar to Peruta v. San Diego, which the 9th Circuit is rehearing this month - I wonder if having a similar issue in two courts across the country increases the possibility that the USSC will take up the may-issue versus shall-issue question sooner rather than later...
S_B_Jackson
(906 posts)so far the 2nd Circuit, 3rd Circuit, and 4th Circuit have come down in support of "sufficient/good cause" requirements; while the 6th Circuit, 7th Circuit, 10th - and in Peruta v. San Diego County the 9th Circuit - have come down as opposed to such requirements.
There's no way the USSC can not get involved - especially after reading the decision in Peruta where Judge O'Scannlain went so far out of his way in calling out what he saw as the 2-4th Circuits' lazy and willful misreading of the SCOTUS' rulings in Heller v. District of Columbia and McDonald v. City of Chicago rulings.
What's surprising is that the 4th Circuit, 5th Circuit, and 11th Circuit Courts of Appeal have remained silent.
Taitertots
(7,745 posts)Who cares whether or not DC cops want to give out permits?