Little-Acorn
Gold Member
The usual DC gun-rights-haters have to be beaten again, and again, and again to get them to obey the law. And even then, it's only a matter of time before they find reasons to take away people's gun rights yet again.
This is Chapter 15 in the long-running saga of those who think they don't have to obey the U.S. Constitution, or that the Constitution doesn't really mean what it says.
“The District of Columbia cannot parcel out Constitutional rights to a select few of its choosing,” Thompson said. “That’s not how the Constitution works in this country.”
------------------------------------------------------
U.S. judge strikes down D.C. concealed-carry gun law as likely unconstitutional
U.S. judge strikes down D.C. concealed-carry gun law as likely unconstitutional
By Spencer S. Hsu and Ann E. Marimow
May 17 at 2:26 PM
A federal judge has ruled that a key provision of the District’s new gun law is likely unconstitutional, ordering D.C. police to stop requiring individuals to show “good reason” to obtain a permit to carry a firearm on the streets of the nation’s capital.
In imposing a preliminary injunction pending further litigation, U.S. District Judge Richard J. Leon reignited a running battle over the Second Amendment in the District and its courts where three different judges have now weighed in with varying conclusions.
“The enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table,” Leon wrote in a 46-page opinion, quoting a 5-4 U.S. Supreme Court decision in 2008 in another District case that established a constitutional right to keep firearms in one’s home.
Leon said that the right applies both inside and outside the home.
“The District’s understandable, but overzealous, desire to restrict the right to carry in public a firearm for self-defense to the smallest possible number of law-abiding, responsible citizens is exactly the type of policy choice the Justices had in mind,” he wrote.
The law gives police discretion to grant licenses to applicants who show “good reason to fear injury” or “any other proper reason for carrying a pistol,” such as having a job transporting cash or other valuables.
Leon’s ruling came in a lawsuit filed last year by a District gun-owner, Matthew Grace, and gun-rights group Pink Pistols. The plaintiffs alleged that the D.C. gun law violates the core Second Amendment right to bear arms for self-defense, including protecting themselves from non-specific threats and threats that arise unexpectedly.
David Thompson, an attorney for the plaintiffs, said Leon got it right in finding that the Constitution includes a right to carry firearms. “The District of Columbia cannot parcel out Constitutional rights to a select few of its choosing,” Thompson said. “That’s not how the Constitution works in this country.”
This is Chapter 15 in the long-running saga of those who think they don't have to obey the U.S. Constitution, or that the Constitution doesn't really mean what it says.
“The District of Columbia cannot parcel out Constitutional rights to a select few of its choosing,” Thompson said. “That’s not how the Constitution works in this country.”
------------------------------------------------------
U.S. judge strikes down D.C. concealed-carry gun law as likely unconstitutional
U.S. judge strikes down D.C. concealed-carry gun law as likely unconstitutional
By Spencer S. Hsu and Ann E. Marimow
May 17 at 2:26 PM
A federal judge has ruled that a key provision of the District’s new gun law is likely unconstitutional, ordering D.C. police to stop requiring individuals to show “good reason” to obtain a permit to carry a firearm on the streets of the nation’s capital.
In imposing a preliminary injunction pending further litigation, U.S. District Judge Richard J. Leon reignited a running battle over the Second Amendment in the District and its courts where three different judges have now weighed in with varying conclusions.
“The enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table,” Leon wrote in a 46-page opinion, quoting a 5-4 U.S. Supreme Court decision in 2008 in another District case that established a constitutional right to keep firearms in one’s home.
Leon said that the right applies both inside and outside the home.
“The District’s understandable, but overzealous, desire to restrict the right to carry in public a firearm for self-defense to the smallest possible number of law-abiding, responsible citizens is exactly the type of policy choice the Justices had in mind,” he wrote.
The law gives police discretion to grant licenses to applicants who show “good reason to fear injury” or “any other proper reason for carrying a pistol,” such as having a job transporting cash or other valuables.
Leon’s ruling came in a lawsuit filed last year by a District gun-owner, Matthew Grace, and gun-rights group Pink Pistols. The plaintiffs alleged that the D.C. gun law violates the core Second Amendment right to bear arms for self-defense, including protecting themselves from non-specific threats and threats that arise unexpectedly.
David Thompson, an attorney for the plaintiffs, said Leon got it right in finding that the Constitution includes a right to carry firearms. “The District of Columbia cannot parcel out Constitutional rights to a select few of its choosing,” Thompson said. “That’s not how the Constitution works in this country.”
