Posted on 07/29/2017 9:13:58 AM PDT by PROCON
In a major development in the ongoing effort to restore the Second Amendment in Washington, D.C., the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit issued an opinion on Tuesday that would effectively require D.C. officials to make concealed carry licenses available on a “shall-issue” basis.
The court’s decision comes in the combined cases of Wrenn v. D.C. and Grace v. D.C.
Following the landmark case of District of Columbia v. Heller, which recognized a Second Amendment right to have operable handguns in the home for self-defense, the District retaliated by banning carrying of firearms outside the home.
A lower federal court found D.C.’s carry ban also violated the Second Amendment, but rather than comply with that ruling, D.C. created a sham system for concealed carry permits that requires applicants to show a “good” or “proper” reason for needing to carry a concealed handgun. This includes a “special need for self-protection distinguishable from the general community,” job duties requiring the transport of large amounts of cash or valuables, or the need to protect a close relative who cannot provide for his or her own special self-defense needs. Practically speaking, this means the vast majority of law-abiding people who simply want to carry a handgun for self-dense in ordinary circumstances are automatically disqualified.
Licensed concealed carry, moreover, is the only option for ordinary people to lawfully carry a loaded, accessible firearm for self-defense outside the person’s home or business in D.C., so in effect the ban on carry already found unconstitutional remains.
Wrenn and Grace therefore presented the appellate court with the questions of whether the Second Amendment’s right to “bear” arms for self-defense extends beyond the home and, if so, whether District officials could nevertheless deny that right to all but a select,
(Excerpt) Read more at nraila.org ...
A significant ruling because of the anti-gun tyranny in many jurisdictions.
The ruling will also impact other "may-issue" states like New York, New Jersey, California, etal.
Stay tuned.
This Ping List is for all things pertaining to the 2nd Amendment.
FReepmail me if you want to be added to or deleted from the list.
More 2nd Amendment related articles on FR's Bang List.
Considering the 9th Circus ruled exactly opposite, we can only hope the supreme Court takes it up and reaffirms Heller in Spades.
Yes, but unfortunately SCOTUS is still occupied by too many judicial activists; we may need one or two more retirements of RBG and others before a major 2nd Amendment victory is assured.
That could mean asking for a rehearing before the full D.C. Circuit or appealing directly to the U.S. Supreme Court.
On a side note, I would like to remind everyone that NO WHERE IN THE US CONSTITUTION is the word “supreme” Capitalized, however the word “Court” is. The reason for this was the FOunders and Framers viewed the Court as the one branch of government prone to tyranny and despotism, for they were and are not answerable to the voters. So the title “supreme Court” was meant to Downplay their significance in American Juris Prudence, specifically beacause they gave CONGRESS explicit authority over everything the Courts Do.
This may be trivial, but if you check just about every reprinted version and reference to the Constitution you will see it has been deliberately misrepresented to give the supreme Court more reverance than ever intended. It appears to have worked rather well the way peoplem suck up to the black robed despotic tyrants.
See US Constitution
Only if SCOTUS takes the case and affirms. With Justice Gorsuch on the Court, I have little doubt of an affirmance if cert is granted.
Ahmen. NJ needs this badly.
Which was the original decision in Heller. Even Souter got it right once when, in Bush v Gore, he noted with reference to the FL SC that "even a dog knows the difference between being tripped over and kicked."
CA won’t abide by such a ruling. They already thumb their nose at the constitution and and current court rulings. But, I hope to see such a ruling.
Has any member of Congress, Federally anointed or elected office, members of their staff or District politician been denied a carry permit? If not, what twisted logic deems their sole word, as to being at risk, any more valid than that of an ordinary citizen?.
Or their lives more valuable?
This sick Crony interpretation approach to the rule of law screams for an emergency class action suit.
Or a plebiscite.
When did our arguably most valuable unchangeable National Document Change to THE BILL OF SUGGESTIONS???
Not until Kennedy, Breyer, and Ginsberg are replaced. Not sure we can count on Roberts.
I think you are reading too much into the capitalization used by the Founding Fathers. The rules for when a letter was capitalized were different in 1787 (when the Constitutional Convention took place).
As for Congress overseeing the Supreme Court, that would lead to the death of the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights is meant to limit Congressional authority, so it is paradoxical to let the Congress oversee how the Bill of Rights is interpreted and applied.
A good ruling, but history says the left will be back. Time to grab the CCW permits in the same way that gays grabbed marriage licenses in KY after a court ruling.
And they let California’s “may issue” stand, by declining to hear an appeal from the 9th Circuit.
The Court finds itself in the embarrassing position of having to decide between two of its own rulings.
Illinois did exactly what DC and California are doing now, just earlier. IL got smacked down when they ran out of legal obstacles to hide behind and they, kicking and dragging their feet, were forced into enacting what has turned out to be a pretty workable CCW system.
There still shouldn't be any "system" involved, but it's staggering when I think about the change that has occurred here in the past five years.
Hold on.
I call them The Nazgul.
I really think if a Kennedy or Ruth Buzzie retires McInsane along with the same bunch of big government, liberal Republicans will vote against any Gorsuch type nominee. The left realizes that the SC could have a shift against them in balance of power for a generation, maybe two. McInsane and the other lying Republican senators will again truly show where their loyalties lay on that day and it will not be surprising and it will be quite ugly.
In a nutshell, it reads like you are considered a Criminal begging to get out on Probation. You are not exercising a Right, you are a Suspect. If you dare to sneeze they can pull the Permit.
You also have to spend a bunch on money with no guarantee that the “Authorities” will grant you the privilege of exercising your God Given Right to self defense.
The only way I will be able to obtain a Conceal Carry Permit while living in CA is to move to an Inland County up North with a Sheriff that has actually read the Constitution.
Either that or move to AZ which has Constitutional Carry.
“When did our arguably most valuable unchangeable National Document Change to THE BILL OF SUGGESTIONS???”
Stock response to: “No one really needs an AR-15.”= It isn’t the Bill of Needs.
(Or this from the Fudds: “You don’t need an AR-15 with a 30 round magazine to hunt.”= We don’t own them to hunt.)
“Yes, but unfortunately SCOTUS is still occupied by too many judicial activists; we may need one or two more retirements of RBG and others before a major 2nd Amendment victory is assured.”
The one that you need to see retire is Anthony Kennedy (one of Reagan’s “disappointments” on the SCOTUS). He’s the wild card, and he’s probably the one that will be the easiest to replace. When it comes to Ruth Buzzy, the RATs will fight tooth and nail to “keep their seat.” Kennedy, OTOH is considered a “moderate” which means he can’t ever be counted on as a reliable vote for The Constitution.
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.