Federal Court smacks down DC govt, yet again, for blocking issuance of gun permits

[Little-Acorn]

Several years ago, the Supreme Court ruled that the Washington DC government' policy of not issuing any permits for people to own guns, was unconstitutional. This came as no surprise except a few gun-rights-hating liberals.

After several courts repeating the same thing over and over, DC finally said they would issue the permits... but put so many silly conditions on them, that it was nearly impossible for any normal, law-abiding people to get one. Crime continued to soar in DC as the city govt cracked down, not on criminals, but on the law-abiding.

Now the DC District court has said, yet again, that the DC govt's silly restrictions were just as unconstitutional as their original no-guns-at-all-for-the-law-abiding stance was.

I reiterate my proposal that the Cosntitution be amended - to include penalties for those who violate it and are found guilty of doing so in the courts. This lawbreaking bunch in the DC govt and police force would have been long gone.

And a lot more people who are now dead in DC, would still be alive, if law-abiding people been allowed to defend themselves as the Constitution provides. Even though most people still wouldn't have bothered to arm themselves, a few would have. And a lot more criminals would have been a lot more careful around people who might be legally armed against them.

---------------------------------------------

Alan Gura 2nd Amendment District of Columbia

Big 2A Win – Court strikes DC requirement of “good reason” for concealed carry permit

Posted by Andrew Branca
Monday, May 18, 2015 at 8:35pm


As some of you may be aware, Attorney Alan Gura has been waging a legal battle against the District of Columbia (as well as other jurisdictions) based upon their unconstitutional infringement of the Second Amendment generally, and DC residents concealed carry rights in particular.

Having already won a court decision compelling the District–and in particular, its Police Chief Cathy Lanier (pictured above)–to issue concealed carry permits to lawful, qualified residents, Gura naturally ran into the usual anti-gun rearguard position: “Sure, we’ll issue permits–on terms of our own choosing. Terms that nobody except our rich friends and political comrades will ever be deemed to have satisfied.”

And those terms invariably require that the applicant have some special and unusual reason to be granted a concealed carry permit. This is the kind of restriction still being employed in liberal states like New Jersey and New York, and which was being employed in California until the recent Peruta decision by the 9th Circuit.

Gura responded to Lanier’s demand that applications show some special reason–above and beyond simply being law-abiding Americans with civil rights–by filing a motion for an injunction with the US District Court for DC, to prohibit Lanier from imposing those special conditions.

Today that Court handed down its decision on the requested motion–and Gura was the big winner, again:
______________________________

After reviewing the entire file in this matter, the parties’ submissions and the applicable law, and for the above-stated reasons, the Court hereby

ORDERS that Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction is GRANTED; and the Court further

ORDERS that Defendants, their officers, agents, servants, employees, and all persons in active concert or participation with them who receive actual notice of the injunction are enjoined from enforcing the requirement of D.C. Code § 22-4506(a) that handgun carry license applicants have a “good reason to fear injury to his or her person or property or has any other proper reason for carrying a pistol,” including, but not limited to, the manner in which that requirement is defined by D.C. Code § 7-2509.11 and 24 D.C.M.R. §§ 2333.1, 2333.2, 2333.3, 2333.4, and 2334.1, against Plaintiffs Brian Wrenn, Joshua Akery, Tyler Whidby, and other members of Plaintiff Second Amendment Foundation, Inc.; and the Court further

ORDERS that Defendants, their officers, agents, servants, employees, and all persons in active concert or participation with them who receive actual notice of the injunction, are enjoined from denying handgun carry licenses to applicants who meet the requirements of D.C. Code 22- 4506(a) and all other current requirements for the possession and carrying of handguns under District of Columbia law; and the Court further

ORDERS that, pursuant to Rule 65(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiffs shall post security in the amount of $1,000.00; and the Court further

ORDERS that counsel shall appear for a conference with the Court on Tuesday, July 7, 2015, at 11:00 a.m. to discuss an expedited schedule for the resolution of this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 

[martybegan]

Several years ago, the Supreme Court ruled that the Washington DC government' policy of not issuing any permits for people to own guns, was unconstitutional. This came as no surprise except a few gun-rights-hating liberals.

After several courts repeating the same thing over and over, DC finally said they would issue the permits... but put so many silly conditions on them, that it was nearly impossible for any normal, law-abiding people to get one. Crime continued to soar in DC as the city govt cracked down, not on criminals, but on the law-abiding.

Now the DC District court has said, yet again, that the DC govt's silly restrictions were just as unconstitutional as their original no-guns-at-all-for-the-law-abiding stance was.

I reiterate my proposal that the Cosntitution be amended - to include penalties for those who violate it and are found guilty of doing so in the courts. This lawbreaking bunch in the DC govt and police force would have been long gone.

And a lot more people who are now dead in DC, would still be alive, if law-abiding people been allowed to defend themselves as the Constitution provides. Even though most people still wouldn't have bothered to arm themselves, a few would have. And a lot more criminals would have been a lot more careful around people who might be legally armed against them.

---------------------------------------------

Alan Gura 2nd Amendment District of Columbia

Big 2A Win – Court strikes DC requirement of “good reason” for concealed carry permit

Posted by Andrew Branca
Monday, May 18, 2015 at 8:35pm


As some of you may be aware, Attorney Alan Gura has been waging a legal battle against the District of Columbia (as well as other jurisdictions) based upon their unconstitutional infringement of the Second Amendment generally, and DC residents concealed carry rights in particular.

Having already won a court decision compelling the District–and in particular, its Police Chief Cathy Lanier (pictured above)–to issue concealed carry permits to lawful, qualified residents, Gura naturally ran into the usual anti-gun rearguard position: “Sure, we’ll issue permits–on terms of our own choosing. Terms that nobody except our rich friends and political comrades will ever be deemed to have satisfied.”

And those terms invariably require that the applicant have some special and unusual reason to be granted a concealed carry permit. This is the kind of restriction still being employed in liberal states like New Jersey and New York, and which was being employed in California until the recent Peruta decision by the 9th Circuit.

Gura responded to Lanier’s demand that applications show some special reason–above and beyond simply being law-abiding Americans with civil rights–by filing a motion for an injunction with the US District Court for DC, to prohibit Lanier from imposing those special conditions.

Today that Court handed down its decision on the requested motion–and Gura was the big winner, again:
______________________________

After reviewing the entire file in this matter, the parties’ submissions and the applicable law, and for the above-stated reasons, the Court hereby

ORDERS that Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction is GRANTED; and the Court further

ORDERS that Defendants, their officers, agents, servants, employees, and all persons in active concert or participation with them who receive actual notice of the injunction are enjoined from enforcing the requirement of D.C. Code § 22-4506(a) that handgun carry license applicants have a “good reason to fear injury to his or her person or property or has any other proper reason for carrying a pistol,” including, but not limited to, the manner in which that requirement is defined by D.C. Code § 7-2509.11 and 24 D.C.M.R. §§ 2333.1, 2333.2, 2333.3, 2333.4, and 2334.1, against Plaintiffs Brian Wrenn, Joshua Akery, Tyler Whidby, and other members of Plaintiff Second Amendment Foundation, Inc.; and the Court further

ORDERS that Defendants, their officers, agents, servants, employees, and all persons in active concert or participation with them who receive actual notice of the injunction, are enjoined from denying handgun carry licenses to applicants who meet the requirements of D.C. Code 22- 4506(a) and all other current requirements for the possession and carrying of handguns under District of Columbia law; and the Court further

ORDERS that, pursuant to Rule 65(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiffs shall post security in the amount of $1,000.00; and the Court further

ORDERS that counsel shall appear for a conference with the Court on Tuesday, July 7, 2015, at 11:00 a.m. to discuss an expedited schedule for the resolution of this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Would this apply to New York City's "for good reason" standard that is enforced for Conceal Carry Permits?

 

[NYcarbineer]

So today the conservatives like the unelected judges dictated to local governments.

 

[martybegan]

So today the conservatives like the unelected judges dictated to local governments.

The 2nd amendment is explicit, unlike most of the "rights" you champion.

Tell me why the NYPD can deny me a CCW permit "just because" it wants to when I meet all other requirements, no criminal record, no adjudicated mental illness, I meet the age requirement, etc.

 

[Syriusly]

So today the conservatives like the unelected judges dictated to local governments.

The 2nd amendment is explicit, unlike most of the "rights" you champion.

Tell me why the NYPD can deny me a CCW permit "just because" it wants to when I meet all other requirements, no criminal record, no adjudicated mental illness, I meet the age requirement, etc.

Like he said- today you like it when the courts overturn a local law.

Because you agree with the court.

Your opinion of the legality of the courts is predicated entirely upon whether you agree with their decisions.

 

[Ringel05]

Several years ago, the Supreme Court ruled that the Washington DC government' policy of not issuing any permits for people to own guns, was unconstitutional. This came as no surprise except a few gun-rights-hating liberals.

After several courts repeating the same thing over and over, DC finally said they would issue the permits... but put so many silly conditions on them, that it was nearly impossible for any normal, law-abiding people to get one. Crime continued to soar in DC as the city govt cracked down, not on criminals, but on the law-abiding.

Now the DC District court has said, yet again, that the DC govt's silly restrictions were just as unconstitutional as their original no-guns-at-all-for-the-law-abiding stance was.

I reiterate my proposal that the Cosntitution be amended - to include penalties for those who violate it and are found guilty of doing so in the courts. This lawbreaking bunch in the DC govt and police force would have been long gone.

And a lot more people who are now dead in DC, would still be alive, if law-abiding people been allowed to defend themselves as the Constitution provides. Even though most people still wouldn't have bothered to arm themselves, a few would have. And a lot more criminals would have been a lot more careful around people who might be legally armed against them.

---------------------------------------------

Alan Gura 2nd Amendment District of Columbia

Big 2A Win – Court strikes DC requirement of “good reason” for concealed carry permit

Posted by Andrew Branca
Monday, May 18, 2015 at 8:35pm


As some of you may be aware, Attorney Alan Gura has been waging a legal battle against the District of Columbia (as well as other jurisdictions) based upon their unconstitutional infringement of the Second Amendment generally, and DC residents concealed carry rights in particular.

Having already won a court decision compelling the District–and in particular, its Police Chief Cathy Lanier (pictured above)–to issue concealed carry permits to lawful, qualified residents, Gura naturally ran into the usual anti-gun rearguard position: “Sure, we’ll issue permits–on terms of our own choosing. Terms that nobody except our rich friends and political comrades will ever be deemed to have satisfied.”

And those terms invariably require that the applicant have some special and unusual reason to be granted a concealed carry permit. This is the kind of restriction still being employed in liberal states like New Jersey and New York, and which was being employed in California until the recent Peruta decision by the 9th Circuit.

Gura responded to Lanier’s demand that applications show some special reason–above and beyond simply being law-abiding Americans with civil rights–by filing a motion for an injunction with the US District Court for DC, to prohibit Lanier from imposing those special conditions.

Today that Court handed down its decision on the requested motion–and Gura was the big winner, again:
______________________________

After reviewing the entire file in this matter, the parties’ submissions and the applicable law, and for the above-stated reasons, the Court hereby

ORDERS that Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction is GRANTED; and the Court further

ORDERS that Defendants, their officers, agents, servants, employees, and all persons in active concert or participation with them who receive actual notice of the injunction are enjoined from enforcing the requirement of D.C. Code § 22-4506(a) that handgun carry license applicants have a “good reason to fear injury to his or her person or property or has any other proper reason for carrying a pistol,” including, but not limited to, the manner in which that requirement is defined by D.C. Code § 7-2509.11 and 24 D.C.M.R. §§ 2333.1, 2333.2, 2333.3, 2333.4, and 2334.1, against Plaintiffs Brian Wrenn, Joshua Akery, Tyler Whidby, and other members of Plaintiff Second Amendment Foundation, Inc.; and the Court further

ORDERS that Defendants, their officers, agents, servants, employees, and all persons in active concert or participation with them who receive actual notice of the injunction, are enjoined from denying handgun carry licenses to applicants who meet the requirements of D.C. Code 22- 4506(a) and all other current requirements for the possession and carrying of handguns under District of Columbia law; and the Court further

ORDERS that, pursuant to Rule 65(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiffs shall post security in the amount of $1,000.00; and the Court further

ORDERS that counsel shall appear for a conference with the Court on Tuesday, July 7, 2015, at 11:00 a.m. to discuss an expedited schedule for the resolution of this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Would this apply to New York City's "for good reason" standard that is enforced for Conceal Carry Permits?

Maybe..... eventually. However some states allow each jurisdiction to develop it's own laws concerning firearms like Colorado, some like Virginia require all jurisdictions to adhere to state law concerning firearms so it's a toss up.

 

[martybegan]

So today the conservatives like the unelected judges dictated to local governments.

The 2nd amendment is explicit, unlike most of the "rights" you champion.

Tell me why the NYPD can deny me a CCW permit "just because" it wants to when I meet all other requirements, no criminal record, no adjudicated mental illness, I meet the age requirement, etc.

Like he said- today you like it when the courts overturn a local law.

Because you agree with the court.

Your opinion of the legality of the courts is predicated entirely upon whether you agree with their decisions.

I never argued the legality of the courts, I have said they overstep their bounds when they create things instead of interpret them.

I actually support SSM when it is legislatively acted on, what I don't think is a court has the ability to re-write a legislatively created contract so extremely. I also wouldn't vote to ban abortion, but I don't see the ability of a court to prevent States from doing it, as regulating medical procedures isn't something given to the federal government in the constitution.

 

[Ringel05]

So today the conservatives like the unelected judges dictated to local governments.

The 2nd amendment is explicit, unlike most of the "rights" you champion.

Tell me why the NYPD can deny me a CCW permit "just because" it wants to when I meet all other requirements, no criminal record, no adjudicated mental illness, I meet the age requirement, etc.

Like he said- today you like it when the courts overturn a local law.

Because you agree with the court.

Your opinion of the legality of the courts is predicated entirely upon whether you agree with their decisions.

DC is not a State nor is it covered under the Constitution like any other State, County or local jurisdiction is, it's a separate entity under the ultimate jurisdiction of the Federal Government therefore must comply with Federal Law and the US Constitution. That's one reason DC has been fighting for Statehood for decades.

 

[martybegan]

Several years ago, the Supreme Court ruled that the Washington DC government' policy of not issuing any permits for people to own guns, was unconstitutional. This came as no surprise except a few gun-rights-hating liberals.

After several courts repeating the same thing over and over, DC finally said they would issue the permits... but put so many silly conditions on them, that it was nearly impossible for any normal, law-abiding people to get one. Crime continued to soar in DC as the city govt cracked down, not on criminals, but on the law-abiding.

Now the DC District court has said, yet again, that the DC govt's silly restrictions were just as unconstitutional as their original no-guns-at-all-for-the-law-abiding stance was.

I reiterate my proposal that the Cosntitution be amended - to include penalties for those who violate it and are found guilty of doing so in the courts. This lawbreaking bunch in the DC govt and police force would have been long gone.

And a lot more people who are now dead in DC, would still be alive, if law-abiding people been allowed to defend themselves as the Constitution provides. Even though most people still wouldn't have bothered to arm themselves, a few would have. And a lot more criminals would have been a lot more careful around people who might be legally armed against them.

---------------------------------------------

Alan Gura 2nd Amendment District of Columbia

Big 2A Win – Court strikes DC requirement of “good reason” for concealed carry permit

Posted by Andrew Branca
Monday, May 18, 2015 at 8:35pm


As some of you may be aware, Attorney Alan Gura has been waging a legal battle against the District of Columbia (as well as other jurisdictions) based upon their unconstitutional infringement of the Second Amendment generally, and DC residents concealed carry rights in particular.

Having already won a court decision compelling the District–and in particular, its Police Chief Cathy Lanier (pictured above)–to issue concealed carry permits to lawful, qualified residents, Gura naturally ran into the usual anti-gun rearguard position: “Sure, we’ll issue permits–on terms of our own choosing. Terms that nobody except our rich friends and political comrades will ever be deemed to have satisfied.”

And those terms invariably require that the applicant have some special and unusual reason to be granted a concealed carry permit. This is the kind of restriction still being employed in liberal states like New Jersey and New York, and which was being employed in California until the recent Peruta decision by the 9th Circuit.

Gura responded to Lanier’s demand that applications show some special reason–above and beyond simply being law-abiding Americans with civil rights–by filing a motion for an injunction with the US District Court for DC, to prohibit Lanier from imposing those special conditions.

Today that Court handed down its decision on the requested motion–and Gura was the big winner, again:
______________________________

After reviewing the entire file in this matter, the parties’ submissions and the applicable law, and for the above-stated reasons, the Court hereby

ORDERS that Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction is GRANTED; and the Court further

ORDERS that Defendants, their officers, agents, servants, employees, and all persons in active concert or participation with them who receive actual notice of the injunction are enjoined from enforcing the requirement of D.C. Code § 22-4506(a) that handgun carry license applicants have a “good reason to fear injury to his or her person or property or has any other proper reason for carrying a pistol,” including, but not limited to, the manner in which that requirement is defined by D.C. Code § 7-2509.11 and 24 D.C.M.R. §§ 2333.1, 2333.2, 2333.3, 2333.4, and 2334.1, against Plaintiffs Brian Wrenn, Joshua Akery, Tyler Whidby, and other members of Plaintiff Second Amendment Foundation, Inc.; and the Court further

ORDERS that Defendants, their officers, agents, servants, employees, and all persons in active concert or participation with them who receive actual notice of the injunction, are enjoined from denying handgun carry licenses to applicants who meet the requirements of D.C. Code 22- 4506(a) and all other current requirements for the possession and carrying of handguns under District of Columbia law; and the Court further

ORDERS that, pursuant to Rule 65(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiffs shall post security in the amount of $1,000.00; and the Court further

ORDERS that counsel shall appear for a conference with the Court on Tuesday, July 7, 2015, at 11:00 a.m. to discuss an expedited schedule for the resolution of this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Would this apply to New York City's "for good reason" standard that is enforced for Conceal Carry Permits?

Maybe..... eventually. However some states allow each jurisdiction to develop it's own laws concerning firearms like Colorado, some like Virginia require all jurisdictions to adhere to state law concerning firearms so it's a toss up.

Even if States allow home rule when it comes to firearm laws, those laws can't violate the 2nd amendment, or the State constitution (if it protects firearm ownership). Home rule flows from the State constitution down, not the other way.

 

[NYcarbineer]

So today the conservatives like the unelected judges dictated to local governments.

The 2nd amendment is explicit, unlike most of the "rights" you champion.

Tell me why the NYPD can deny me a CCW permit "just because" it wants to when I meet all other requirements, no criminal record, no adjudicated mental illness, I meet the age requirement, etc.

Like he said- today you like it when the courts overturn a local law.

Because you agree with the court.

Your opinion of the legality of the courts is predicated entirely upon whether you agree with their decisions.

DC is not a State nor is it covered under the Constitution like any other State, County or local jurisdiction is, it's a separate entity under the ultimate jurisdiction of the Federal Government therefore must comply with Federal Law and the US Constitution. That's one reason DC has been fighting for Statehood for decades.

So you wouldn't support the Supreme Court doing this to a state?

lol, good one.

 

[Ringel05]

Several years ago, the Supreme Court ruled that the Washington DC government' policy of not issuing any permits for people to own guns, was unconstitutional. This came as no surprise except a few gun-rights-hating liberals.

After several courts repeating the same thing over and over, DC finally said they would issue the permits... but put so many silly conditions on them, that it was nearly impossible for any normal, law-abiding people to get one. Crime continued to soar in DC as the city govt cracked down, not on criminals, but on the law-abiding.

Now the DC District court has said, yet again, that the DC govt's silly restrictions were just as unconstitutional as their original no-guns-at-all-for-the-law-abiding stance was.

I reiterate my proposal that the Cosntitution be amended - to include penalties for those who violate it and are found guilty of doing so in the courts. This lawbreaking bunch in the DC govt and police force would have been long gone.

And a lot more people who are now dead in DC, would still be alive, if law-abiding people been allowed to defend themselves as the Constitution provides. Even though most people still wouldn't have bothered to arm themselves, a few would have. And a lot more criminals would have been a lot more careful around people who might be legally armed against them.

---------------------------------------------

Alan Gura 2nd Amendment District of Columbia

Big 2A Win – Court strikes DC requirement of “good reason” for concealed carry permit

Posted by Andrew Branca
Monday, May 18, 2015 at 8:35pm


As some of you may be aware, Attorney Alan Gura has been waging a legal battle against the District of Columbia (as well as other jurisdictions) based upon their unconstitutional infringement of the Second Amendment generally, and DC residents concealed carry rights in particular.

Having already won a court decision compelling the District–and in particular, its Police Chief Cathy Lanier (pictured above)–to issue concealed carry permits to lawful, qualified residents, Gura naturally ran into the usual anti-gun rearguard position: “Sure, we’ll issue permits–on terms of our own choosing. Terms that nobody except our rich friends and political comrades will ever be deemed to have satisfied.”

And those terms invariably require that the applicant have some special and unusual reason to be granted a concealed carry permit. This is the kind of restriction still being employed in liberal states like New Jersey and New York, and which was being employed in California until the recent Peruta decision by the 9th Circuit.

Gura responded to Lanier’s demand that applications show some special reason–above and beyond simply being law-abiding Americans with civil rights–by filing a motion for an injunction with the US District Court for DC, to prohibit Lanier from imposing those special conditions.

Today that Court handed down its decision on the requested motion–and Gura was the big winner, again:
______________________________

After reviewing the entire file in this matter, the parties’ submissions and the applicable law, and for the above-stated reasons, the Court hereby

ORDERS that Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction is GRANTED; and the Court further

ORDERS that Defendants, their officers, agents, servants, employees, and all persons in active concert or participation with them who receive actual notice of the injunction are enjoined from enforcing the requirement of D.C. Code § 22-4506(a) that handgun carry license applicants have a “good reason to fear injury to his or her person or property or has any other proper reason for carrying a pistol,” including, but not limited to, the manner in which that requirement is defined by D.C. Code § 7-2509.11 and 24 D.C.M.R. §§ 2333.1, 2333.2, 2333.3, 2333.4, and 2334.1, against Plaintiffs Brian Wrenn, Joshua Akery, Tyler Whidby, and other members of Plaintiff Second Amendment Foundation, Inc.; and the Court further

ORDERS that Defendants, their officers, agents, servants, employees, and all persons in active concert or participation with them who receive actual notice of the injunction, are enjoined from denying handgun carry licenses to applicants who meet the requirements of D.C. Code 22- 4506(a) and all other current requirements for the possession and carrying of handguns under District of Columbia law; and the Court further

ORDERS that, pursuant to Rule 65(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiffs shall post security in the amount of $1,000.00; and the Court further

ORDERS that counsel shall appear for a conference with the Court on Tuesday, July 7, 2015, at 11:00 a.m. to discuss an expedited schedule for the resolution of this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Would this apply to New York City's "for good reason" standard that is enforced for Conceal Carry Permits?

Maybe..... eventually. However some states allow each jurisdiction to develop it's own laws concerning firearms like Colorado, some like Virginia require all jurisdictions to adhere to state law concerning firearms so it's a toss up.

Even if States allow home rule when it comes to firearm laws, those laws can't violate the 2nd amendment, or the State constitution (if it protects firearm ownership). Home rule flows from the State constitution down, not the other way.

Federally if you're talking about the Supremacy Clause be careful, that's a potentially dangerous double edged sword. Yes, it's the State Constitutions that dictate how each State interacts with it's jurisdictions and how much latitude each jurisdiction has, basically what I said.

 

[Ringel05]

So today the conservatives like the unelected judges dictated to local governments.

The 2nd amendment is explicit, unlike most of the "rights" you champion.

Tell me why the NYPD can deny me a CCW permit "just because" it wants to when I meet all other requirements, no criminal record, no adjudicated mental illness, I meet the age requirement, etc.

Like he said- today you like it when the courts overturn a local law.

Because you agree with the court.

Your opinion of the legality of the courts is predicated entirely upon whether you agree with their decisions.

DC is not a State nor is it covered under the Constitution like any other State, County or local jurisdiction is, it's a separate entity under the ultimate jurisdiction of the Federal Government therefore must comply with Federal Law and the US Constitution. That's one reason DC has been fighting for Statehood for decades.

So you wouldn't support the Supreme Court doing this to a state?

lol, good one.

Excuse me?

 

[martybegan]

Several years ago, the Supreme Court ruled that the Washington DC government' policy of not issuing any permits for people to own guns, was unconstitutional. This came as no surprise except a few gun-rights-hating liberals.

After several courts repeating the same thing over and over, DC finally said they would issue the permits... but put so many silly conditions on them, that it was nearly impossible for any normal, law-abiding people to get one. Crime continued to soar in DC as the city govt cracked down, not on criminals, but on the law-abiding.

Now the DC District court has said, yet again, that the DC govt's silly restrictions were just as unconstitutional as their original no-guns-at-all-for-the-law-abiding stance was.

I reiterate my proposal that the Cosntitution be amended - to include penalties for those who violate it and are found guilty of doing so in the courts. This lawbreaking bunch in the DC govt and police force would have been long gone.

And a lot more people who are now dead in DC, would still be alive, if law-abiding people been allowed to defend themselves as the Constitution provides. Even though most people still wouldn't have bothered to arm themselves, a few would have. And a lot more criminals would have been a lot more careful around people who might be legally armed against them.

---------------------------------------------

Alan Gura 2nd Amendment District of Columbia

Big 2A Win – Court strikes DC requirement of “good reason” for concealed carry permit

Posted by Andrew Branca
Monday, May 18, 2015 at 8:35pm


As some of you may be aware, Attorney Alan Gura has been waging a legal battle against the District of Columbia (as well as other jurisdictions) based upon their unconstitutional infringement of the Second Amendment generally, and DC residents concealed carry rights in particular.

Having already won a court decision compelling the District–and in particular, its Police Chief Cathy Lanier (pictured above)–to issue concealed carry permits to lawful, qualified residents, Gura naturally ran into the usual anti-gun rearguard position: “Sure, we’ll issue permits–on terms of our own choosing. Terms that nobody except our rich friends and political comrades will ever be deemed to have satisfied.”

And those terms invariably require that the applicant have some special and unusual reason to be granted a concealed carry permit. This is the kind of restriction still being employed in liberal states like New Jersey and New York, and which was being employed in California until the recent Peruta decision by the 9th Circuit.

Gura responded to Lanier’s demand that applications show some special reason–above and beyond simply being law-abiding Americans with civil rights–by filing a motion for an injunction with the US District Court for DC, to prohibit Lanier from imposing those special conditions.

Today that Court handed down its decision on the requested motion–and Gura was the big winner, again:
______________________________

After reviewing the entire file in this matter, the parties’ submissions and the applicable law, and for the above-stated reasons, the Court hereby

ORDERS that Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction is GRANTED; and the Court further

ORDERS that Defendants, their officers, agents, servants, employees, and all persons in active concert or participation with them who receive actual notice of the injunction are enjoined from enforcing the requirement of D.C. Code § 22-4506(a) that handgun carry license applicants have a “good reason to fear injury to his or her person or property or has any other proper reason for carrying a pistol,” including, but not limited to, the manner in which that requirement is defined by D.C. Code § 7-2509.11 and 24 D.C.M.R. §§ 2333.1, 2333.2, 2333.3, 2333.4, and 2334.1, against Plaintiffs Brian Wrenn, Joshua Akery, Tyler Whidby, and other members of Plaintiff Second Amendment Foundation, Inc.; and the Court further

ORDERS that Defendants, their officers, agents, servants, employees, and all persons in active concert or participation with them who receive actual notice of the injunction, are enjoined from denying handgun carry licenses to applicants who meet the requirements of D.C. Code 22- 4506(a) and all other current requirements for the possession and carrying of handguns under District of Columbia law; and the Court further

ORDERS that, pursuant to Rule 65(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiffs shall post security in the amount of $1,000.00; and the Court further

ORDERS that counsel shall appear for a conference with the Court on Tuesday, July 7, 2015, at 11:00 a.m. to discuss an expedited schedule for the resolution of this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Would this apply to New York City's "for good reason" standard that is enforced for Conceal Carry Permits?

Maybe..... eventually. However some states allow each jurisdiction to develop it's own laws concerning firearms like Colorado, some like Virginia require all jurisdictions to adhere to state law concerning firearms so it's a toss up.

Even if States allow home rule when it comes to firearm laws, those laws can't violate the 2nd amendment, or the State constitution (if it protects firearm ownership). Home rule flows from the State constitution down, not the other way.

Federally if you're talking about the Supremacy Clause be careful, that's a potentially dangerous double edged sword. Yes, it's the State Constitutions that dictate how each State interacts with it's jurisdictions and how much latitude each jurisdiction has, basically what I said.

Agreed, however since it has been decided that the bill of rights in incorporated to the States, a state (and by that logic a local home rule government) is bound by the same rules the federal government it when it comes to the Bill of Rights.

 

[2aguy]

So today the conservatives like the unelected judges dictated to local governments.

No...conservatives like judges to do their fucking jobs......and that's all.....

 

[Little-Acorn]

After several courts repeating the same thing over and over, DC finally said they would issue the permits... but put so many silly conditions on them, that it was nearly impossible for any normal, law-abiding people to get one. Crime continued to soar in DC as the city govt cracked down, not on criminals, but on the law-abiding.

Liberals will be liberals.

Doesn't matter what the Constitution says.

Doesn't matter what the courts said.

They will continue to violate both as often as they want.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

So today the conservatives like the unelected judges dictated to local governments.

The hypocrisy of the right knows no bounds.

Now all of a sudden the hated Federal courts are 'good,' Constitutional jurisprudence is the supreme law of the land, and laws enacted by the 'will of the people' are appropriately invalidated.

Conservatives can't have it both ways.

 

[2aguy]

So today the conservatives like the unelected judges dictated to local governments.

The hypocrisy of the right knows no bounds.

Now all of a sudden the hated Federal courts are 'good,' Constitutional jurisprudence is the supreme law of the land, and laws enacted by the 'will of the people' are appropriately invalidated.

Conservatives can't have it both ways.

The courts are wrong when they violate the Constitution and their specific powers....when they uphold the 2nd Amendment they are in the right....moron......

 

[FA_Q2]

So today the conservatives like the unelected judges dictated to local governments.

The hypocrisy of the right knows no bounds.

Now all of a sudden the hated Federal courts are 'good,' Constitutional jurisprudence is the supreme law of the land, and laws enacted by the 'will of the people' are appropriately invalidated.

Conservatives can't have it both ways.

LOL.

You think you cant agree with one court ruling but then disagree with another. How asinine.