BUT THINK OF THE DIGNITARIES AND THEIR CHILDREN!!!

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.”

 

 

Didn't actual assassinations happen outside of DC? Wasn't Kennedy assassinated in Texas? 

 

Also I LOL at the fact that they think that they can create a bubble around DC when shall-issue Alexandria, VA is just a metro ride away.

I also think they are disingenuous scum. It is for public safety they cry and then explain it with a fear of attacks on dignitaries. Are all of the population of DC dignitaries? If so, can't they all have a quiet word with one of their chums and get a carry permit anyway?

 

Indeed asshats!

"D.C. circling wagons on guns; Spokane’s Robin Ball safety efforts lauded"  http://www.examiner.com/article/d-c-circling-wagons-on-guns-spokane-s-robin-ball-safety-efforts-lauded

 

"Yet, according to yesterday’s Washington Post, Police Chief Cathy Lanier expressed a sentiment that has long been shared by rank-and-file cops. In comments to the press about the ruling, she acknowledged, “Law-abiding citizens that register firearms, that follow the rules, are not our worry.” "

 

Can someone show this to our elected officials on all levels of the government, please?  The chief of police of the nation's capitol says that she's not worried about law-abiding cititens.  One can reason that she's worried about criminals.  Let us have our rights already!

"D.C. circling wagons on guns; Spokane’s Robin Ball safety efforts lauded"  http://www.examiner.com/article/d-c-circling-wagons-on-guns-spokane-s-robin-ball-safety-efforts-lauded

 

"Yet, according to yesterday’s Washington Post, Police Chief Cathy Lanier expressed a sentiment that has long been shared by rank-and-file cops. In comments to the press about the ruling, she acknowledged, “Law-abiding citizens that register firearms, that follow the rules, are not our worry.” "

 

Can someone show this to our elected officials on all levels of the government, please?  The chief of police of the nation's capitol says that she's not worried about law-abiding cititens.  One can reason that she's worried about criminals.  Let us have our rights already!

 

I think that's the problem.... it's the "politicians" that are worried about the law-abiding citizens....   some ol' constitutional thing about "overthrowing a government" or something....  

Didn't actual assassinations happen outside of DC? Wasn't Kennedy assassinated in Texas? 

 

Also I LOL at the fact that they think that they can create a bubble around DC when shall-issue Alexandria, VA is just a metro ride away.

The whole absurdness of all these ridiculous statements is they say it like by banning CCW, no one will carry a gun, not even a criminal.

 

Just like "gun free zones", how has that been working out.

 

Listening to these stupid, dishonest politicians makes me feel like Einstein.

The absolute ridiculousness of all gun control is that it doesn't ever apply to the people we need to worry about.  If someone is going to assassinate a government official, restricting carry permits is not going to have any effect, that guy has already decided that he is going to break the law.  

 

The smaller ridiculousness is that a good guy with a gun might even prevent an assassination, or robbery, or rape, or...

To get back to the opinion (http://alangura.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/DCT_OPINION.pdf),

 

"On or about May 12, 2009, Defendant Lanier denied Plaintiff Palmer's application to register a handgun for the following reason: "The intended use of the firearm as stated on your firearms registration application, "I intend to carry this firearm, loaded, in public, for self-defense, when not kept in my home" is unacceptable per the "Firearms Registration Emergency Amendment Act of 2008," which states that pistols may only be registered by D.C. residents for protection within the home."

 

"...if self-defense outside the home is part of the core right to 'bear arms' and the [District of Columbia's] regulatory scheme prohibits the exercise of that right, no amount of interest-balancing under a heightened form of means-end scrutiny can justify [the District of Columbia's] policy."

 

If upheld, do you think that this could this be used to defeat justifiable need?"

Additionally, would you folks be willing to "register" your firearm(s) in order to be able to carry here?

Additionally, would you folks be willing to "register" your firearm(s) in order to be able to carry here?

As I bought all my pistols while resident in NJ they are already registered

 

Sent from my SCH-I800 using Tapatalk 2

 

 

Agreed, but realistically, if the state would require it specifically for issuance of a carry license, would you do it?

I would reluctantly register the one(s) I planned to carry.

 

Sent from my SCH-I800 using Tapatalk 2

 

 

i would do it, for the same reason stated above, they already know what handguns I own. It would be worth being able to carry. However, the issue becomes being involved in any type of "use of force" incident in this state. A self defense shooting in NJ will be handled wayyyyyyy differently than a self defense shooting in a southern state like Florida. God forbid it ever happend, the scrutiny would be off the charts and people would cry for the scumbag that got shot, then you go to jail. I was watching a video of a clean ccw shoot at an Aldi. It was a southern state, blanking on which one, but an armed thug robbed an Aldi at gun point then was shot in the back twice by a Concealed carrier on his way out the door. The thug was arrested after his hospital stay and sentenced to 15 years. The ccw holser was commended by the AG of that state. In this state the AG would want you in jail right next to that thug.

 

So yes i want to be able to carry in this state, and no I don't want the stigma that comes along with being involved in any sort of shooting in this ridiculous state, self defense or not.

Another thought: They would know I had a carry permit. They can easily infer that I have pistols. It would only be the details of which one(s) that they would be missing from their records.

 

If confiscation is the order of the day, that detail will most likely be irrelevant as they would probably arrest me anyway.

 

Sent from my SCH-I800 using Tapatalk 2

 

 

Regarding, DC as a state, the reason  is that DC would always vote for more, bigger government.

That is the last thing I want out of the district.

Some docs opposing the stay pending appeal.

 

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/izd5rv11etj14ab/AAC3WPf5p6wGkWAAz6OnZpvEa

i thought he agreed to it already?

He agreed to a 90 day stay, not a stay pending appeal. 

Some docs opposing the stay pending appeal.

 

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/izd5rv11etj14ab/AAC3WPf5p6wGkWAAz6OnZpvEa

so basically 90 days is all they get to write a new law, after that no more stays unless the dc circuit wants to intervene 

 

is this right?

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/stay

 

"Stay
The act of temporarily stopping a judicial proceeding through the order of a court.
 
A stay is a suspension of a case or a suspension of a particular proceeding within a case. A judge may grant a stay on the motion of a party to the case or issue a stay sua sponte, without the request of a party. Courts will grant a stay in a case when it is necessary to secure the rights of a party.
 
There are two main types of stays: a stay of execution and a stay of proceedings. A stay of execution postpones the enforcement of a judgment against a litigant who has lost a case, called the Judgment Debtor. In other words, if a civil litigant wins money damages or some other form of relief, he may not collect the damages or receive the relief if the court issues a stay. Under rule 62 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, every civil judgment is stayed for ten days after it is rendered. An additional stay of execution lasts only for a limited period. It usually is granted when the judgment debtor appeals the case, but a court may grant a stay of execution in any case in which the court feels the stay is necessary to secure or protect the rights of the judgment debtor.
 
The term stay of execution may also refer to a halt in the execution of a death penalty. This kind of stay of execution normally is granted when a court decides to allow an additional appeal by a condemned prisoner. Such stays of execution may be granted by executives, such as governors or the president of the United States, or by appeals courts.
 
A stay of proceedings is the stoppage of an entire case or a specific proceeding within a case. This type of stay is issued to postpone a case until a party complies with a court order or procedure. For example, if a party is required to deposit collateral with the court before a case begins, the court may order the proceedings stayed for a certain period of time or until the money or property is delivered to the court. If the party fails to deposit the collateral, the court may cite the party for Contempt of court and impose a fine or order incarceration.
 
A court may stay a proceeding for a number of reasons. One common reason is that another action is under way that may affect the case or the rights of the parties in the case. For instance, assume that a defendant faces lawsuits from the same plaintiffs in two separate cases involving closely related facts. One case is filed in federal court, and the other case is filed in state court. In this situation one of the courts may issue a stay in deference to the other court. The stay enables the defendant to concentrate on one case at a time.
 
The term stay may also be used to describe any number of legal measures taken by a legislature to provide temporary relief to debtors. For example, under section 362(a) of the Bankruptcy Code, a debtor who files for bankruptcy receives an automatic stay immediately upon filing a voluntary bankruptcy petition. Used in this sense, the term stay refers to the right of the debtor to keep creditors at bay during the resolution of the bankruptcy case."

so basically 90 days is all they get to write a new law, after that no more stays unless the dc circuit wants to intervene 

 

is this right?

IANAL, but I concur with your assessment.

ndeed, Defendant Lanier has offered that the Court’s decision “would have a relatively

minimal impact on street crime or her department’s ability to police neighborhoods and lock up

dangerous criminals who are found carrying guns. ‘Law-abiding citizens that register firearms, that

follow the rules, are not our worry.’” Defendant Lanier’s concern appears to remain the security of

5

sensitive places. “My one focus, really, now is going to be security of our dignitaries in those really

highly sensitive large events.” Id.

Moreover,

Lanier . . . said fears were overstated that the end of the carry ban would impede everyday

policing by putting thousands of additional guns on the street. Lanier also played down

concerns that dangerous criminals could go free if officers cannot detain and charge them for

carrying a weapon in public. Criminals, she said, typically do not possess properly registered

firearms, meaning they can be charged under other laws not challenged by Scullin’s ruling.

 

 

ITS AMAZING THAT HE INCLUDED THIS!

Another thought: They would know I had a carry permit. They can easily infer that I have pistols. It would only be the details of which one(s) that they would be missing from their records.

 

If confiscation is the order of the day, that detail will most likely be irrelevant as they would probably arrest me anyway.

 

Sent from my SCH-I800 using Tapatalk 2

Apparently if you have something registered and it doesn't meet the law, or even appears not to meet the law, you'll get a visit from the men in black:  http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/aug/1/feds-raid-nc-home-to-seize-land-rover-in-epa-emiss/  No firearms involved, LOL!

 

And:  http://jalopnik.com/the-feds-just-seized-40-land-rovers-imported-to-the-u-s-1605985758

Regarding, DC as a state, the reason  is that DC would always vote for more, bigger government.

That is the last thing I want out of the district.

 

It would be good for the Dems, because they would get two more senators, at least another rep, and three or more additional electoral votes.

so basically 90 days is all they get to write a new law, after that no more stays unless the dc circuit wants to intervene

 

is this right?

Not really. They have 30 days to appeal and they can file for a stay pending appeal at anytime. It may or may not be granted. That's up to judge scullin and if he doesn't grant it the DC circuit.

IANAL, but I concur with your assessment.

They can get more stays if the judge agrees. He may not.

Well, 44 CCW permits approved so far:

 

DC Police: 44 Concealed Carry Permits Approved From 206 Applicants

WASHINGTON — The Daily Caller learned from Washington D.C.’s Metropolitan Police Department spokeswoman Gwendolyn Crump Tuesday that of the 206 concealed carry applications sent for review to MPD, 44 were approved so far. According to the MPD website, the department began accepting applications for concealed carry permits on October 23, 2014.

TheDC also asked Mayor Muriel Bowser at a press conference Tuesday if the cost and bureaucracy of applying for a gun permit in the district hinders DC’s poorest from owning a legal firearm for self-defense.

Bowser did not think so and said her answer would not be the same if these same individuals had to go through the same process to vote.

“I think it should cover the cost of administering the program,” she said. Bowser was unable to say how much an individual should pay, though.

On May 18, a federal judge barred enforcement of provisions of the D.C. law that gives discretion to the chief of police as to who is issued a DC concealed firearms permit.

District officials requested the court suspend the order pending further proceedings in the DC concealed carry case known as Wrenn v. District of Columbia.

Washington D.C. is in the midst of a crime spike and shootings occur nearly every day. Bowser and MPD chief Cathy Lanier are proposing methods to remove illegal guns off the streets in the district.

Surrounded by seized firearms, Lanier told reporters that violent criminals are using “high capacity magazines” and “multiple rounds being fired from multiple guns.” TheDC did not see any pistol magazine on display higher than 15 rounds.

“Some of the violence we have seen recently has been just dispute resolution with a gun. It’s that simple and so the way we have to go after that is go after these guns with these high capacity magazines,” Lanier said.

Washington D.C. city councilman Kenyan McDuffie, chair of the D.C.’s judiciary committee, told TheDC, “We’re not talking about law abiding citizens who want concealed carry permits. We’re talking about criminals who have illegal guns and commit violent crime and homicides.”

When asked if Washington’s strict gun laws can make non-violent individuals criminals anyway, he responded, “I’ve been out in the community frequently and when I talk to residents they are really concerned about people who have an illegal gun and the consequences.”

Related:

 

"U.S. appeals court strikes down one-gun-a-month law in District" https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/crime/us-appeals-court-strikes-down-one-gun-a-month-law-in-district/2015/09/18/137fa290-5e22-11e5-8e9e-dce8a2a2a679_story.html

Related:

 

"U.S. appeals court strikes down one-gun-a-month law in District" https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/crime/us-appeals-court-strikes-down-one-gun-a-month-law-in-district/2015/09/18/137fa290-5e22-11e5-8e9e-dce8a2a2a679_story.html

Figures, a fucking George W Bush appointee would have upheld all of the laws:

 

In a dissent, U.S. Circuit Judge Karen LeCraft Henderson, appointed by George W. Bush, warned that regulating firearms to “combat gun violence is a grave and complex task” and that she would have upheld all of the D.C. law.

I'm just shocked at them thinking that criminals are going to legally purchase firearms specifically to commit crimes and that by limiting them to one firearm a month, that will reduce violence.