Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Washington DC Maintains Its Prohibition on the Second Amendment
Townhall.com ^ | September 19, 2014 | Michael Schaus

Posted on 09/19/2014 1:19:08 PM PDT by Kaslin

Washington DC has been ordered to allow concealed handguns… But, c’mon, let’s not get carried away. I mean, why on Earth would we rush to allow such American freedoms in America’s capitol, right? Following in the footsteps of liberal enclaves like Boston, New York, and the People’s Republic of California, Washington DC is paying lip service to the Second Amendment by crafting a “May Issue” concealed carry rule.

Essentially, the rule amounts to an arbitrary case-by-case determination of concealed carry applications, where applicants will be asked to provide a “legitimate” reason for carrying a gun. According to WJLA:

The District is seeking to let the police chief decide whether people have a reason to carry a concealed firearm, and officials said living in a high-crime neighborhood would not be a sufficient reason to obtain a permit. People who’ve received death threats or have been the victims of domestic violence are among those who could be granted permits.

Sufficient reason? Have you seen that cute piece of parchment housed in the National Archives building lately? In short, anyone hoping to possess the tools necessary for adequate self-defense will be required to convince a group of bureaucrats and police brass (the same bureaucrats and police brass that originally thought handguns should be completely banished from the district) that there is a “sufficient” reason for armed protection.

Apparently you need to have the date and time of your future mugging handy when applying. “Excuse me, I would like to get a carry license, because someone is going to try to attack me next Friday at 10:30 pm…”

And really, even then the application could still be denied. Officials even went so far as to point out that living in a high-crime neighborhood will not be seen as “sufficient” reason for arming one’s self. The message from the city to its residents seems to be pretty simple: Just be a victim like everyone else in the neighborhood, and quit your whining.

But let’s be honest: DC is not alone. The tactic of weighing down liberties in arbitrary bureaucracy is almost becoming common place in America. Prohibition by regulatory burden has long been the favorite tool to discourage gun ownership in the Big Apple, Chicago, and other bastions of progressive “enlightenment”. (Oddly, these places seem to be plagued by violence… It’s almost as if bad guys aren’t keeping up with all these new gun laws.)

I’d also like to know where our “civil leaders” are on these clear usurpations of human rights. After all, such discriminating administrative tactics tend to disproportionately prohibit legal firearm ownership among minority groups and lower-income families. There’s a reason similar laws were common place among Southern Democrat states in the years after the civil war, as racist politicos attempted to prohibit freed slaves from arming themselves. (High enough fees, burdensome enough red tape, and arbitrary licensing schemes also plagued the progressive paradise of 1930’s Germany, and Stalin’s Soviet Union, for similar reasons.)

WJLA rightly pointed out that the practice of such arbitrarily restrictive licensing might well be in conflict with the ruling that compelled DC to entertain the idea of concealed carry in the first place:

Alan Gura, an attorney for plaintiffs in the lawsuit, said the proposal did not comply with the judge’s order. “In America, the police don’t determine what rights we have good reason to enjoy,” Gura said. “You don’t need a good reason to speak, to worship, to vote, or to carry a gun for self-defense.”

So Washington DC is about to allow concealed carry. And if you can convince an anti-gun police department that you are somehow in imminent danger, they’ll consider taking three months to issue you a permission slip that allows you the “right” to arm yourself. Yeah… That complies perfectly with the Bill of Rights Privileges.


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Editorial; US: District of Columbia
KEYWORDS: antigun; banglist; concealedcarry; firearms; gunrights; handguns; secondamendment

1 posted on 09/19/2014 1:19:09 PM PDT by Kaslin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

One of those officials said that the city would honor out-of-district CHPs, but the city quickly backtracked on that one. The official was obviously thinking of MD permits and not VA permits, since the city is thinking of modeling its law on MD’s law, which essentially bans permits.

As I said in a previous post, I was told by a MD LEO that in order to get a MD permit you have to:

1. Have already been shot,

2. Have to know who shot you,

3. Know “somebody”.


2 posted on 09/19/2014 1:33:46 PM PDT by VanShuyten ("a shadow...draped nobly in the folds of a gorgeous eloquence.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Why isn’t there s speech license, or a religion license or a press license? What is it about the second amendment right that makes it so restrictable versus all other rights, written or imagined? You must show ID to exercise your second amendment right, but not to vote.


3 posted on 09/19/2014 1:36:48 PM PDT by Sgt_Schultze (A half-truth is a complete lie)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sgt_Schultze

DC is governed by the US Congress, and they have delegated power to the City Government. It would be nice for them to revoke the right of the city govt. to regulate in this area, and pass the laws directly via the Congress.

It’s an Article 1, Section 8 power of Congress. Zero doesn’t even get a say.

Blame it on Boehner, something else he’s not up to doing. Though neither did Newt or Hastert.


4 posted on 09/19/2014 1:44:08 PM PDT by Jack Black ( Disarmament of a targeted group is one of the surest early warning signs of future genocide.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
I mean, why on Earth would we rush to allow such American freedoms in America’s capitol, right?

Well, in DC's defense there IS a higher ratio of politicians and gibsmedats / honest citizen there than elsewhere, so.....

5 posted on 09/19/2014 2:02:23 PM PDT by Still Thinking (Freedom is NOT a loophole!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

When ISIS comes to town to plant the white flag on the White House every other house should be armed.


6 posted on 09/19/2014 2:12:23 PM PDT by billhilly (Its OK, the left hated Bush.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Dred Scott vs Sanford.
What the SCOTUS thought about gun control in the pre Civil War era.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0060_0393_ZO.html

It would give to persons of the negro race, who were recognised as citizens in any one State of the Union, the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, singly or in companies, without pass or passport, and without obstruction, to sojourn there as long as they pleased, to go where they pleased at every hour of the day or night without molestation, unless they committed some violation of law for which a white man would be punished;
and it would give them the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs,
and to KEEP AND CARRY ARMS wherever they went.


7 posted on 09/19/2014 2:30:03 PM PDT by Ruy Dias de Bivar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: VanShuyten

Carry anyway, and ask for forgiveness later when push has come to shove and use of a weapon in self-defense was clearly a necessity.

The assailant has surrendered his rights the moment he assaulted another. Retaliation in like measure is always fully justified, though many places might not recognize that argument. Then it is the law that is wrong, not the defendant.


8 posted on 09/19/2014 2:38:26 PM PDT by alloysteel (Most people become who they promised they would never be.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Sgt_Schultze
Why isn’t there s speech license, or a religion license or a press license?

Don't give them any ideas.

9 posted on 09/19/2014 2:39:03 PM PDT by kevao (Biblical Jesus: Give your money to the poor. Socialist Jesus: Give your neighbor's money to the poor)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

DC government is to be forthright repugnant to the 2nd amendment and thus to the entire constitution.

If DC government is willing to become this creative (a la California btw), it seems only fitting and proper that concerned citizens could likewise demonstrate some corresponding creativity. Specifically I wonder if some kind of 2A flash mob protest could be organized which would be specifically engineered to frustrate local DC police enforcement of the DC government notion of the PRIVELEGE to keep and bear arms.

Ideally the design would be such that each event would be entirely repeatable and entirely immune to thwarting by individual LE turncoat informants.


10 posted on 09/19/2014 3:07:31 PM PDT by SteveH (First they ignore you. Then they laugh at you. Then they fight you. Then you win.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SteveH

If 2A rights activists suddenly received anonymous death threats, then the cause for withholding a carry permit would be removed then, would it not?

Time for 2A rights activists to stop settling for sitting on the back of the bus, IMHO...


11 posted on 09/19/2014 3:10:55 PM PDT by SteveH (First they ignore you. Then they laugh at you. Then they fight you. Then you win.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
The District is seeking to let the police chief decide whether people have a reason to carry a concealed firearm, and officials said living in a high-crime neighborhood would not be a sufficient reason to obtain a permit.

Wasn't a variant on this idea in California struck down by the Ninth Circuit?

12 posted on 09/19/2014 3:36:43 PM PDT by Carry_Okie (Democrats: the Party of slavery to the immensely wealthy for over 200 years.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sgt_Schultze

“What is it about the second amendment right that makes it so restrictable versus all other rights, written or imagined?”

I can assure you, Sgt_Schultze, that the elitists - meaning Congress and the fascist bureaucracy - are terrified of citizens owning weapons that can be tuned against them with devastating effect.


13 posted on 09/19/2014 3:54:53 PM PDT by sergeantdave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Forced to take down their “no coloreds” signs, they’ve put up their no guns signs.


14 posted on 09/19/2014 7:23:29 PM PDT by School of Rational Thought
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

The problem with arbitrary laws is that no one obeys them. I’d bet DC has one of the highest % of gun owners in the US, both the criminals and the good guys.


15 posted on 09/19/2014 7:26:18 PM PDT by EDINVA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie

“Wasn’t a variant on this idea in California struck down by the Ninth Circuit?”

Yes, in the Peruta decision.

http://gunwatch.blogspot.com/2014/05/san-diego-sheriff-tries-to-dodge.html


16 posted on 09/20/2014 5:16:20 AM PDT by marktwain (The old media must die for the Republic to live. Long live the new media!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

Thx. It seemed strange to me that after a similar law was struck down by the Ninth in California the powers that be in DC would even try this. They must be desperate.


17 posted on 09/20/2014 4:21:15 PM PDT by Carry_Okie (Democrats: the Party of slavery to the immensely wealthy for over 200 years.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie

They are ideologues on this. It has become a tenant of the “progressive” religion that the citizenry must be disarmed.

It shows their power and disregard for Constitutional limits.

If they can ignore the clear meaning of the second amendment, what limit is there to their power?

The very idea of limits on government power is repugnant to them.


18 posted on 09/21/2014 5:55:21 AM PDT by marktwain (The old media must die for the Republic to live. Long live the new media!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson