October 15, 20179 yr 2ND AMENDMENT ADVOCATES CHEER 'CONCEALED CARRY' DECISION Supremes now likely to hear case after 'good reason' requirement found unconstitutional Published: 09/29/2017 at 9:05 AM BOB UNRUH About | Email | Archive Subscribe to feed Second Amendment Foundation founder Alan M. Gottlieb was rejoicing Friday after a federal appeals court ruled the Constitution does not give authority to officials in the District of Columbia to decide whether a gun owner has a “good” reason to obtain a concealed-carry permit. “We are grateful,” he said, “that the court has shown considerable wisdom, and this should help advance the effort to assure reasonable concealed carry for district residents. It represents one more advancement in our effort to win firearms freedom one lawsuit at a time.” It was the U.S. District Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia that turned down a demand from the city from the full court to rehear the case Wrenn v. District of Columbia. SAF noted “not a single judge on the court requested a rehearing.” The earlier decision from a three-judge panel favored Brian Wrenn and SAF, who had challenged the district’s practice of demanding that citizens provide a “good reason” to be issued a concealed-carry permit. The court panel struck that requirement. “Ten years ago, Washington, D.C.’s political leadership tried to extinguish Second Amendment rights before the Supreme Court,” said Alan Gura, the famous attorney who has fought many gun-rights battles in court. “The result was D.C. v. Heller, a tremendous victory for the rights of all Americans. With the court of appeals again confirming the people’s right to bear arms, Washington, D.C.’s politicians must once again ask themselves whether it makes sense to keep resisting our fundamental rights.” He was the lawyer who won at the Supreme Court in both the 2008 District of Columbia v. Heller case and in 2010 in the McDonald v. City of Chicago. “Heller affirmed that the amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms, and McDonald incorporated the Second Amendment to the states via the 14th Amendment,” SAF explained. The district imposed the “good reason” rule following its earlier gun-control losses in court. The D.C. government had petitioned for the full court to hear the current case, but the judges refused to reconsider the 2-1 decision that came earlier this year. The Washington Time said the outcome “sets up the potential for the Supreme Court to take up the case as the decision creates a split with four other federal circuits that have found discretionary permitting schemes elsewhere are legal.” Adam Winkler, a law professor in Los Angeles, told the newspaper, “Because of what the D.C. Circuit didn’t do today, the Supreme Court is now far more likely to take a concealed-carry case.” The result could be a nationwide precedent for access to concealed-carry permits. Karl Racine, the attorney general for the district, said he was reviewing whether there would be a further appeal. Technically, the city had demanded that gun owners prove they have a “good reason to fear injury” or another “proper reason” to have a permit. Officials described qualifying circumstances as having a job that requires carrying large amounts of cash or something similar. WND reported last month the now-banished rule had allowed Police Chief Cathy Lanier to deny 99 percent of all carry applications. Officials in Washington also had claimed their city was “unique” because of its dense population, which includes “thousands of high-ranking federal officials and international diplomats.” The majority opinion in the July ruling was written by Judge Thomas Beall Griffith, a 2005 George W. Bush appointee, who declared: At the Second Amendment’s core lies the right of responsible citizens to carry firearms for personal self-defense beyond the home, subject to longstanding restrictions. … The District’s good-reason law is necessarily a total ban on exercises of that constitutional right for most D.C. residents. That’s enough to sink this law under (the 2008 U.S. Supreme Court’s Heller ruling). Larry Pratt, executive director of Gun Owners of America, told WND in July that the D.C. law was a de facto gun ban that affected all law-abiding people who visit the nation’s capital. “Overturning the de facto D.C. gun ban on constitutional grounds is very welcome. Not only does it respect the Constitution, it will result in fewer crimes of violence in the district,” he said. What are the NJ Dems gonna do now?
October 15, 20179 yr 29 minutes ago, Downtownv said: 2ND AMENDMENT ADVOCATES CHEER 'CONCEALED CARRY' DECISION Supremes now likely to hear case after 'good reason' What are the NJ Dems gonna do now? What are our groups gonna do now? Charge?
October 15, 20179 yr No problem if you want to carry here. You'll just have to have insurance not only on your hand gun, but on every gun you own. $500,000 a weapon sounds about right. $1,000,000 if you carry. You can have all the guns you can afford. Kinda like justice huh...
October 15, 20179 yr wouldn't that be the same for us here (unconstitutional) with the justifiable need ?
October 15, 20179 yr 1 minute ago, muzzelloader69 said: wouldn't that be the same for us here (unconstitutional) with the justifiable need ? Likely. It's going to take a Supreme Court decision to effect any change in this state.
October 15, 20179 yr 53 minutes ago, ChrisJM981 said: Likely. It's going to take a Supreme Court decision to effect any change in this state. But it should make the path that much easier. However, I believe that this state will further build more barriers in other areas should they be forced into this. Higher permit costs, quarterly state run mandated courses, that sort of thing.
October 16, 20179 yr 5 hours ago, BobA said: But it should make the path that much easier. However, I believe that this state will further build more barriers in other areas should they be forced into this. Higher permit costs, quarterly state run mandated courses, that sort of thing. Courses held at one facility, at 11am on the 3rd Wednesday every other month, with only 10 slots per course.
October 16, 20179 yr I don't mean to be a pessimist, it's just that we have some rabid anti Second Amendment legislators that will have to be carried out dead from the statehouse before they stop infringing on our rights.
October 16, 20179 yr DC is only shall issue because they haven't updated their laws yet to react to this. I fully expect them to come forward with additional training, licensing, insurance and restrictions on locations. Expect the 16 hours of training and 2 hours of live fire to be expanded to 40 hours at minimum with regular mandated refreshers. Also they'll say you cannot carry within x feet of any (insert facility type here) leaving one or two blocks where you can carry. That way they can go onto the next court challenge saying their compliant and do issue permits without having to meet a good reason. They will not roll over this easy.
October 16, 20179 yr DC announced they aren't appealing so there won't be a Supreme Court decision on this and it won't help us directly.
October 16, 20179 yr Regardless of DC appealing or not. There is still a conflict in decisions by several US Circuit Courts. SCOTUS has to settle that I believe.
October 16, 20179 yr 1 hour ago, JohnnyB said: Regardless of DC appealing or not. There is still a conflict in decisions by several US Circuit Courts. SCOTUS has to settle that I believe. One thing should be abundantly clear by now: The Supreme Court doesn't "have to" hear anything. A split in the circuits certainly is a very significant factor in cert decisions but just because there is a circuit split doesn't mean a case will be heard. It is clear after Drake, Peruta, Mascsndarjo and I believe one or two other carry cases that were denied cert that the court as currently comprised will not hear this issue. We know gorsuch and Thomas want it heard based on their dissent in the denial of cert in Peruta. Perhaps Alito is on board as well. But they don't have 4 votes for cert so Roberts and Kennedy likely are not on board. We need at least a replacement for Kennedy and, hopefully Ginsberg in order for this issue to get hears and decided our way. There is a good chance of that but there is also a chance we don't get 2 new justices before Trump is impeached or loses in 2020. In that case it's very unlikely we ever get a supreme court ruling on right to carry.
October 16, 20179 yr I agree that nothing is certain with SCOTUS and at times things move at a snails pace. I also don't listen to pollsters. So if Trump wins another term and then is followed by Pence we could see multiple appointments. Only time will tell.
October 20, 20179 yr On 10/16/2017 at 7:52 PM, NJGF said: I agree that nothing is certain with SCOTUS and at times things move at a snails pace. I also don't listen to pollsters. So if Trump wins another term and then is followed by Pence we could see multiple appointments. Only time will tell. LMAO, you've got a better chance of being raped by a unicorn that's riding a unicycle while juggling.
October 20, 20179 yr 16 minutes ago, Hairless_Ape said: LMAO, you've got a better chance of being raped by a unicorn that's riding a unicycle while juggling. that is an impressive mental construct. which part of the unicorn is doing the "raping", just so we're clear.
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.