Judge’s ruling allows concealed-carry for D.C. gun owners, shoots down police objections

[Judi Lynn]

Source: Washington Times

Judge’s 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 city’s 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 department’s 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]

1. Gun Nuts Rights > People's Rights Not To Be Terrorized nt

[sarisataka]

2. More accurately...

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]

3. you nailed the salient point n/t

[daleanime]

7. Because who would want to live without fear...

[friendly_iconoclast]

10. I seem to have missed the part in the Constitution about "fear of others doing things I don't like"

Perhaps you might be so good as to point it out for our edification?

TIA

[daleanime]

11. Why?

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]

13. "I've given up on any hope for improvement" 'Improvement'? Fewer people are being killed with guns

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]

12. What fear? nt

[friendly_iconoclast]

15. Fear of people doing things *they* don't like. Puritanism is alive and well in gun control circles

[friendly_iconoclast]

9. Ah, "DU gun control advocacy" - largely insults, emotional arguments, and genitalia jokes

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]

4. Washington Post on May 18:

Federal judge again rules key part of new D.C. gun law unconstitutional

Ten months after striking down the District’s long-standing ban on carrying firearms in public as unconstitutional, a federal judge Monday ordered the city to halt enforcing a key provision of the new gun-permitting system it adapted in response.

As passed by the D.C. Council, the District’s 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]

5. Great

What could possibly go wrong? You don't need to see MadMax just read the papers.

[GGJohn]

6. Gee, I don't know, why don't you tell us what could possibly go wrong?

You think it's law abiding citizens causing the high crime rate in DC?

[Skittles]

16. plenty of people have no clue what could go wrong

idiots

[friendly_iconoclast]

17. You lot cry wolf whenever some place goes 'shall-issue', and have done so since at least 2007

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x696832

Relaxing concealed weapons laws would be disastrous!

When you apply statistics to Guns and violence, the pro gun arguments are laughable! Relaxing concealed weapons laws would lead to perhaps thousands more people dead a year...

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

Locked and loaded: Concealed carry grows as critics’ fears of ‘bloodbath’ proven wrong


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 haven’t had any big problems since the law took effect in 2004,” Stammitti said.

Sigsworth said Erie County hasn’t 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 Dungjen’s 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 Ohio’s 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 newspaper’s 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]

19. I mean, DC's 30 year gun ban worked so well, you know? (nt)

[hack89]

8. The police have a sad because they cannot deny another civil liberty.

what could possibly go wrong with letting the police decide who can and cannot exercise their constitutional rights?

[friendly_iconoclast]

14. A few posters here are having the same sad...

Controllers of all sorts get the sads when people resist them:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=167671

[petronius]

18. If a 'good reason' requirement is unconstitutional, it sounds as though the judge is

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]

20. More than just two circuits....

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]

21. Make the title: DC cops push for unconstitutional laws

Who cares whether or not DC cops want to give out permits?