Offline
District of Columbia is slapped down again!
Big 2A Win – Court strikes DC requirement of “good reason” for concealed carry permit
Attorney Alan Gura notches another win against DC Police Chief Cathy Lanier.
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 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 herebyORDERS that Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction is GRANTED; and the Court furtherORDERS 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 -22-Case 1:15-cv-00162-FJS Document 13 Filed 05/18/15 Page 23 of 23ORDERS 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 furtherORDERS 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 furtherORDERS 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
Last edited by Common Sense (5/19/2015 3:11 pm)
Offline
I was just thinking, the one thing we need more of on the streets of DC are guns.
Offline
Yea it’s pretty bad when we expect our government to follow court orders
and the law of the land! Of course they know better………….
Why should citizens be allowed to protect themselves?
Offline
At least when ISIS arrives, we will have a "well armed militia" to battle them !
Offline
The Court also rejected D.C.’s assertion that they had a legitimate interest in reducing the number of handguns in public places:
Furthermore, even if the Court were to accept the proposition that handguns are used disproportionately in the commission of violent crimes, how is that use related to whether or not a person has a greater need for self-protection? Moreover, isn’t it possible that even persons who cannot manifest a present need for self-protection are just as likely to be victims of a violent crime.
Simply put, the District of Columbia’s “good reason”/”proper reason” requirement will neither make it less likely that those who meet this requirement will present a risk to other members of the public or commit violent crimes than those who cannot meet this requirement. Therefore, after reviewing the record in this case, the Court finds that Defendants have failed to demonstrate that there is any relationship, let alone a tight fit, between reducing the risk to other members of the public and/or violent crime and the District of Columbia’s “good reason”/”proper reason” requirement.
This is very good news. SAF only chose to file for a preliminary injunction on the “good cause” requirement, and they got it. D.C. is now not permitted to enforce this requirement. Good show!
Last edited by Common Sense (5/19/2015 3:22 pm)
Offline
This passion for guns is something I just don't get.
Offline
"Good reason"
"Proper reason"
Common sense (oops . . . did I just say that?) tells you that any reasonable person thinking soundly would arrive at the rational decision that increasing the availability of one of the root causes of a problem will exacerbate that problem rather than relieve it.
In other words, the court's decision will do little or nothing towards solving the problem of shootings and violent crimes committed with a gun.
Offline
Wow.
Nothing's changed.
I tune out the world for three years and when I glance back, nothing's changed.
Everyone's still doing the same things. Still circling in the same ruts. Digging ever deeper until the walls are so high that no one even remembers why they started circling in the first place.
Lethal weapons are part of the American psyche. A cultural icon. They're never going to go away.
It's always been 'take them all away' versus 'give them out to everyone'.
Doesn't anyone else feel tired? Did it never occur to anyone to try to find another way? Doesn't anyone realize circles never change?
Offline
Well, the bottomline is that DC will become safer. Just like that bar/restaurant in Waco was when the bad guys started shooting eachother.
The problem is not enough 'good guys' with guns are confronting the 'bad guys' with guns. For example, my guess is that if Common would have been there packing heat to protect his family, the Bandidos and rival gangs would have backed off. It's common knowledge that the good guys always crush the bad guys. If you want proof, watch tv shows and movies or John Wayne movies and that will prove my point.
Last edited by Just Fred (5/19/2015 7:09 pm)
Offline
Rongone wrote:
"Good reason"
"Proper reason"
Common sense (oops . . . did I just say that?) tells you that any reasonable person thinking soundly would arrive at the rational decision that increasing the availability of one of the root causes of a problem will exacerbate that problem rather than relieve it.
In other words, the court's decision will do little or nothing towards solving the problem of shootings and violent crimes committed with a gun.
True.
Of all the major developed nations we have one of the worst records in terms of gun-related murder rates.
Last edited by tennyson (5/19/2015 9:47 pm)