DC Handgun Carry Ban Overturned!

[diamondd817 828]

Yeah great, be reasonable and fair to the completely unreasonable and unfair. It took 5yrs for a decision, now Guara wants to be accommodating?

[Vlad G 345]

Yeah great, be reasonable and fair to the completely unreasonable and unfair. It took 5yrs for a decision, now Guara wants to be accommodating?

 

I think he wants to force it to the Supreme Court. 

[n4p226r 105]

My guess (and just a guess) is that he wants to at least appear to be fair. 

 

He did say that he would be open to a short stay, but not 180+30 days like Moore v Madigan (illinois)

 

why not seem fair.  its not like they weren't going to grant a stay.  plus it stops some of the bubbas from texas open carry from coming up with loaded AR15s and screwing things up.  

[CMJeepster 2,781]

"Plaintiff in D.C. handgun ruling: ‘It felt good’" http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/plaintiff-in-dc-handgun-ruling-it-felt-good/2014/07/29/6936a848-1759-11e4-9e3b-7f2f110c6265_story.html

[shooter28 153]

I have my CCW application filled out. If we get some plan of action and some sort of legal expertise to help out, Im game for submitting and trying to help accomplish something.

[jackandjill 683]

I have my CCW application filled out. If we get some plan of action and some sort of legal expertise to help out, Im game for submitting and trying to help accomplish something.

I dont think it will happen in NJ. There is not enough organization, planning, legal backing and possibly numbers (participation) to make this happen in NJ. Would love to be wrong here.

[ryan_j 0]

I dont think it will happen in NJ. There is not enough organization, planning, legal backing and possibly numbers (participation) to make this happen in NJ. Would love to be wrong here.

 

Then we need to make this happen. 

[ryan_j 0]

If the intent is to put together a real CCW program then 6 months is fair. They need to train instructors, Design course materialists, hire personal, ect

 

Bull pucky. They had four whole years. 

 

Train instructors? All they need to do is accept an NRA course... if they want to be strict, accept a specific course like basic pistol (like what Connecticut does). 

 

Hire personnel? USe the same ones who handle the registration. In fact, just make the registration certificate a carry permit, if someone submits a training certificate with it. 

 

Bottom line - no need to throw up roadblocks when there shouldn't be any.

[ryan_j 0]

Yeah great, be reasonable and fair to the completely unreasonable and unfair. It took 5yrs for a decision, now Guara wants to be accommodating?

 

I think he wants to force it to the Supreme Court. 

 

Gura and SAF does absolutely want it in SCOTUS. But at this time they want to not appear to be obstructionist so DC can't cop out. They have to at least appear cooperative. Give them their stay. It's only 90 days. The other thing is that this sets a nice trap - the stay will be up very close to elections. The last thing DC and the federal Gov't wants is gun control as their October surprise. It will be 1994 all over again. 

 

Also, any DC law needs to sit for 30 days for Congress to review it. So in reality they have 60 days to craft a law. 

[CMJeepster 2,781]

It will be 1994 all over again. 

 Good.  I miss my hair and would love to see it again. 

[67gtonut 847]

 Good.  I miss my hair and would love to see it again. 

 

I would be able to see my toes again.....

[Zeke 5,504]

He said bull pucky!

Now that's funny

[DeerSlayer 241]

Good. I miss my hair and would love to see it again.

Ahhh senior year of high school, had a cool car with a big Phoenix on the hood, always full of beautiful young ladies hanging out of the T-tops, an easy job, no bills, and normally $100 in my pocket at all times. I'll take that year anytime. Ohh, I think I hear Nirvana on the radio...

[magnawing 5]

hmmm....'94?   Not married yet, no kids, disposable income....and then...

[raz-0 1,259]

No no.. you are missing the real point of a stay. 

 

Throw out the exiting law, craft a new "shall issue" law that excludes basically everyone and lets them drag out any theoretical approval for I dunno 5-6 years for the paperwork, and start the process of challenging it over. 

 

They were told their ban was unconstitutional, so remove the ban and implement something that is essentially a ban, but worded differently. Then cite the drake dismissal. 

[NYMetsFan86 9]

No no.. you are missing the real point of a stay. 

 

Throw out the exiting law, craft a new "shall issue" law that excludes basically everyone and lets them drag out any theoretical approval for I dunno 5-6 years for the paperwork, and start the process of challenging it over. 

They were told their ban was unconstitutional, so remove the ban and implement something that is essentially a ban, but worded differently. Then cite the drake dismissal. 

 

 

sounds consistent...

[Newtonian 453]

sounds consistent...

The cases are totally different. In Drake, the Supremes (including Diana Ross) declined to hear a case that a lower court had ruled on negatively. Stare dececis is the Latin term. I don't know law but I still remember some Latin. Here, a lower court has declared a stay on a POSITIVE ruling. It has to act one way or another. 

 

DC will litigate this all the way up to the Supreme Court. Maybe this is our salvation. Maybe Jesus will come again and stamp out the vintage where the grapes of wrath are stored.

[maintenanceguy 510]

I have mixed feelings about the supremes.   Ultimately we will need a final decision but I'm worried about the decision we'll get.

 

The liberal 4 will vote to prevent carry, the conservative 4 will vote to make carry accessable and Kennedy could go either way.  I think it's a 50/50 chance that when SCOTUS finally hears a carry case, NJ's law might stand or even become more restrictive.

 

Kennedy was comfortable with people owning guns in their home but I'm not sure he's comfortable with people carrying guns.

[jackandjill 683]

Then we need to make this happen. 

But "we" cannot make it happen. Not in any meaningful way.

I will donate $10 for every application, upto $10,000 if 1000 people sign up.

And I challenge 100 other 2A proponents to do the same. We would have a million bucks. Its no match for Bloomberg, but its a start.

 

You would think doing this is relatively easy given "millions" of gun owners in NJ.

[n4p226r 105]

But "we" cannot make it happen. Not in any meaningful way.

I will donate $10 for every application, upto $10,000 if 1000 people sign up.

And I challenge 100 other 2A proponents to do the same. We would have a million bucks. Its no match for Bloomberg, but its a start.

 

You would think doing this is relatively easy given "millions" of gun owners in NJ.

the problem isn't the money.  the problem is what is it going to solve?  its proving what everyone knows already.  NJ is shall not issue.  it doesn't take 1000 denials for everyone to see that.  

[jackandjill 683]

the problem isn't the money.  the problem is what is it going to solve?  its proving what everyone knows already.  NJ is shall not issue.  it doesn't take 1000 denials for everyone to see that.  

Everyone knowing and someone able to prove in court of law are different things. 

 

When court cases take years to progress, what is the strategy if not for lining up as many cases in courts as possible ? And that costs money.   Money is also powerful player in elections. We debated this many times - we need BOTH court cases, litigation and powerful,  sustained political campaign to move things forward. I love to see these happen and am willing to contribute, apply & go vote. But I doubt this will happen in in NJ, not in any meaningful way.

[mikelets456 78]

I have mixed feelings about the supremes.   Ultimately we will need a final decision but I'm worried about the decision we'll get.

 

The liberal 4 will vote to prevent carry, the conservative 4 will vote to make carry accessable and Kennedy could go either way.  I think it's a 50/50 chance that when SCOTUS finally hears a carry case, NJ's law might stand or even become more restrictive.

 

Kennedy was comfortable with people owning guns in their home but I'm not sure he's comfortable with people carrying guns.

 

 

This is exactly how I feel. "Outside the home" could get struck down, now we're all screwed and criminals will run rampant!!

[ryan_j 0]

I think most of you are second guessing DC.

 

I am willing to bet that they will end up with a law like illinois. It will require training but be shall-issue. It will restrict carry in certain places and allow business owners to put up signs with the force of law. I sure hope they don't ban carry on the metro but I can see them doing that. 

 

Also, chief Lanier made a statement that she is not really worried about street crime, that she is more worried about "dignitaries." It is Washington, DC after all. But reading between the lines, she seems to be saying, "we can deal with this" and not, "blood in the streets." This is completely unlike McCarthy in Chicago who unloaded on the NRA and everyone else, and said that firearms are dangerous in public, period, fully jumping on the "blood in the streeeeeeettttttssss!!!" bandwagon. 

 

Remember that Lanier also has the ear of the mayor and city council. She's an important stakeholder and they're not going to just dismiss her. She sounds kinda reasonable, and the fact that she immediately complied with the ruling, AND gave people who carried a grace period to get out of the city without prosecution is pretty telling. She might be open to this...

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dc-politics/security-not-street-crime-at-risk-after-gun-ruling-dc-police-chief-cathy-lanier-says/2014/07/30/f8b17e1c-1808-11e4-9e3b-7f2f110c6265_story.html

[jtd771 18]

I think most of you are second guessing DC.

 

 

I don't think they'll go the Illinois but rather like Maryland or even New Jersey.  Since the SCOTUS declined to rule on Justifiable Need they will go that route most likely.  They'll be a process to apply but ultimately they will decline almost all applications as the need for the person will not outweigh the need of the public in their eyes.

[CMJeepster 2,781]

Since the SCOTUS declined to rule on Justifiable Need thus far they will go that route most likely.  They'll be a process to apply but ultimately they will decline almost all applications as the need for the person will not outweigh the need of the public in their eyes.

Fixed that for ya.  Maybe Peruta will get to them.

[springfieldxds 0]

I think most of you are second guessing DC.

 

I am willing to bet that they will end up with a law like illinois. It will require training but be shall-issue. It will restrict carry in certain places and allow business owners to put up signs with the force of law. I sure hope they don't ban carry on the metro but I can see them doing that. 

 

Also, chief Lanier made a statement that she is not really worried about street crime, that she is more worried about "dignitaries." It is Washington, DC after all. But reading between the lines, she seems to be saying, "we can deal with this" and not, "blood in the streets." This is completely unlike McCarthy in Chicago who unloaded on the NRA and everyone else, and said that firearms are dangerous in public, period, fully jumping on the "blood in the streeeeeeettttttssss!!!" bandwagon. 

 

Remember that Lanier also has the ear of the mayor and city council. She's an important stakeholder and they're not going to just dismiss her. She sounds kinda reasonable, and the fact that she immediately complied with the ruling, AND gave people who carried a grace period to get out of the city without prosecution is pretty telling. She might be open to this...

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dc-politics/security-not-street-crime-at-risk-after-gun-ruling-dc-police-chief-cathy-lanier-says/2014/07/30/f8b17e1c-1808-11e4-9e3b-7f2f110c6265_story.html

http://blogs.rollcall.com/hill-blotter/d-c-officials-plotting-new-course-to-keep-gun-control-intact/

 

read it ryan, theyre going to try to copy MD laws, i doubt thatll please the judges ruling though

[ryan_j 0]

http://blogs.rollcall.com/hill-blotter/d-c-officials-plotting-new-course-to-keep-gun-control-intact/

 

read it ryan, theyre going to try to copy MD laws, i doubt thatll please the judges ruling though

 

I hope it pisses off the judge sufficiently to not grant another stay and just leave it "open" until they come up with a proper law.

 

or better yet, strike down "may-issue" which could go up the chain. 

 

Remember too that Congress has to review the law. I don't think they'll like a Maryland style law. 

[springfieldxds 0]

i believe you're right that congress wont approve, especially since its so close to elections, but the whole strike down the may issue probably wont be good for us, it could take another 5 years before the district judge releases a simple ruling on may issue, i realy dont want to wait that long lol, but from the judges ruling he definitely wont agree with it and will probably make that crystal clear without having to go through the courts again 

[ryan_j 0]

Peruta is somewhere along the chain too and this decision cited the reasoning.

[njpilot 671]

Asshats.

 

 

“We are the seat of the federal government,” he said. “We have dignitaries and other federal officials who are subject to constant death threats. We’ve had actual assassinations and assassination attempts using firearms in this city. We are a unique place.”

 

 

Because the people would would carry out one of these referred to attacks wouldn't do it while the ban is in effect, but once it's lifted, they will then carry a gun to do it because it would now be legal.

 

Our elected officials are so fucking stupid we are doomed as a species.