Posted on 10/26/2017 7:02:38 AM PDT by marktwain
The District of Columbia, also known as Washington, D.C., has officially become a “shall issue” jurisdiction. The outcome was certain when the government of the District decided not to appeal the decision in Wrenn v. D.C and Grace v. D.C. (the cases were combined) after the United States Court of Appeals refused to grant a review of the decision en banc. From dc.gov.com:
Q: Since you aren’t asking the Supreme Court to review the D.C. Circuit decision, when does their ruling removing the District’s “good reason” requirement take effect?
A: It will take effect when the D.C. Circuit issues what the courts call a “mandate” that effectuates its decision. That should happen at some point in the next few days.
Court Issues Mandate to D.C.: Issue Gun Permits
The mandate was issued without fanfare on October 6th, 2017. People have quietly been applying for permits. The District of Columbia has made some accommodations for people who were previously turned down under the “may issue” law.
At the Crime Prevention Research Center, founded by John Lott, the following map of D.C.'s “gun free” zones was produced. It is a “worst case” based on plausible interpretation of D.C.s murky law. Those “gun free” zones would make the exercise of the Second Amendment in D.C. a virtual impossibility. Later, the CPRC published a map on a somewhat less pessimistic interpretation. It would still be virtually impossible to travel in the District, legally bearing arms, without violating the law.
(Excerpt) Read more at ammoland.com ...
They may now be a “shall issue” jurisdiction but I’d be willing to bet that actually ‘getting a permit’ is NOT going to be easy. They can’t ignore the order but they can sure drag their feet and add “pre-conditons” on criteria that must be met etc. We’ve all seen how that works. Good luck to the honest swamp dwellers.
Now, more than ever, we need national reciprocity.
Now how about NY, Mass, etc
I’m clueless when it comes to court rulings and stuff like that but it’s my understanding that if a Federal Appeals Court in one “district” makes a powerful and important ruling like this it doesn’t necessarily mean that it applies elsewhere.That is,even though a top Federal Court has basically ordered DC to be “shall issue” a state like Massachusetts can still make you go through a two year application for a license and then,for no good reason,deny the application.That’s my understanding of how things stand here...you have to apply to the local police chief for a license and he/she can deny it without even giving a reason.
See Post #5
I think the spineless wonders who we placed in charge of the house and senate have put that and suppressor legislation back in the lock box.
One would think that defying a ruling in that way could open up the jurisdiction in question to civil suits.
No.
It only applies in the jurisdictions that make up the appeals court’s district.
In this case, that jurisdiction is limited to D.C.
It creates a clear split in rulings between the districts, however.
In theory, that means the Supreme Court should be more likely to take a case. In practice, the Supreme Court has not been willing to take this type of case about the Second Amendment.
It will be one of those deals where actually proving that they’re impeding the compliance with the court order will be difficult. Imposing rules and regs won’t mean they’re denying anyone, just a lot of hoops to jump over. I hope I’m wrong. Of course as was pointed out, it will still be virtually impossible to enter from outside DC with a weapon and not violate their laws.
While I sometimes think reciprocity would be a good thing I am concerned about it for 1 simple reason. Anything the Federal government can bestow it can also take away. And if it takes it away, does that mean that it can take away existing reciprocity agreements between states?
CC
I’m in a shall-issue, gun -friendly county, and our system was down because the courthouse couldn’t process fingerprints for several months.
If the libs were confident of a victory, this would have been automatically appealed. They were worried that if it had been upheld, then it would have been applicable to ALL the states. My suspicion is that liberal AGs in states like California did NOT want D.C. to appeal this, because in essence, the 9th Circuit has upheld “may issue.”
What did they do for the criminals they arrested and were supposed to be booked?
I don’t think they can afford to keep anyone. It’s been my experience that they know everyone that gets arrested. Folks steal cars, go to jail, get out, steal a car to get home....Coastal counties in Oregon are welfare cases. Enviro policies saw to that. Municipalities may have fingerprint capabilities, but CCW permits are a county function.
Doesn't the local Sheriff run the county jail? I know they do in L.A. and Orange counties here in CA. Or, do the deputies take a suspect to the local police HQ for fingerprinting?
My point is that they can't fingerprint CCW applicants, but they can fingerprint criminal suspects.
Which is a variation on the old saw, 'justice delayed is justice denied."
Sheriff runs the County jail, yes. They’re understaffed. I suspect most suspects brought to the county jail are apprehended by State or local police. Coquille PD is only a few blocks from the county jail. Probably a turf thing with the fingerprinting, or maybe it’s statutory. Bureaucracy in action. Or inaction.
They may now be a “shall issue” jurisdiction but I’d be willing to bet that actually ‘getting a permit’ is NOT going to be easy.
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.