A federal judge ruled Tuesday that a key provision of the District’s new gun law is probably unconstitutional, ordering D.C. police to stop requiring individuals to show “good reason” to obtain a permit to carry a firearm on the streets of the nation’s capital.
U.S. District Judge Richard J. Leon found that the law violates the “core right of self-defense” granted in the Second Amendment, setting aside arguments from District officials that the regulation is needed to prevent crime and protect the public.
“The enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table,” Leon wrote in a 46-page opinion, quoting a 5-to-4 Supreme Court decision in 2008 in another District case that established a constitutional right to keep firearms inside one’s home.
Leon said the right applies both inside and outside the home.
“The District’s understandable, but overzealous, desire to restrict the right to carry in public a firearm for self-defense to the smallest possible number of law-abiding, responsible citizens is exactly the type of policy choice the Justices had in mind,” he wrote.
So what happens from here? What does all this mean?
The Tuesday ruling imposed a preliminary injunction, pending further litigation. The decision means the city cannot deny concealed-carry permits to residents who do not show a good reason for needing a gun but otherwise would qualify for the permits.
What about non-residents who feel the need to carry a weapon inside the District of Columbia?
Again, what’s lost here is the option of requiring open carry and not granting concealed carry permits. The District is especially sensitive to personal weapons issues, both because of urban crime issues and because of security concerns related to government and diplomatic personnel being present in such numbers. Judge Leon (who is an excellent judge, in my view and experience), makes perfect sense when he says that the “cause” requirement for issuing permits doesn’t hold up in the wake of recent rulings concerning the personal nature of the Second Amedment right to keep and bear arms. However, the District could have quite justifiably imposed training and certification requirements similar to, or even exceeding those of various states, and could have required open carry without doing any violence whatsoever to constitutional rights to own and bear firearms, swords and other arms.
I didnt even understand it–that’s one reason I posted it. I figured there were enough people here to explain.
@MoonHowler
Moon,
What the Judge has ruled is the Districts current “May Issue” licensing scheme is too restrictive, and violates Heller. This is the third time DC has lost, since the Heller decision. They lost last fall, when it was found that of 206 permit applications, only 44 were found to satisfy “good and sufficient reason”. At that time, the court ruled this an arbitrary and restrictive standard. DC ignored this ruling, and the courts have now ordered them to stop using this standard. Essentially, DC is now a SHALL ISSUE state where the “good and sufficient” burden falls on the district, NOT the applicant. Up until this ruling, DC was a “May Issue for Residents and Non-residents” Cathy Laneir’s office better start issuing permits, or she’ll be in contempt of court.
As far as reciprocity goes, unless and until the Congress passes national right-to-carry legislation, it is a matter of agreement between the individual states as to whether or not to recognize other states permits. On July 1, VA will recognize all states permits, including DC’s. Residents of other states can apply for a DC Non-resident permit. If the DC Chief of Police ever decides to follow the orders of the court, I just might apply for one. Here’s a current listing of where each state falls on the continuum from “Right Denied” to “Unrestricted”:
http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/shall-issue-may-issue-no-issue-and-unrestricted-states
Thanks you for the explanation. I remain without opinion.
@MoonHowler
You are quite welcome.
I thought the article was reasonably well balanced…straight reporting!? One thing they left out though. Heller v. DC affirmed an individual right to keep arms for self-defense (setting aside the whole “collective” argument). MacDonald v. Chicago affirmed that the right extended to outside of the home, thereby completing the “Keep” (to possess) and “Bear” (to carry on one’s person) aspects of the 2A. Since then, the Second Amendment Foundation has successfully sued DC three times for failing to comply with Heller and MacDonald. DC keeps stalling, getting sued, and losing. You’d think they’d come around sooner or later.
I am the opposite of Scout on this issue. (He and I usually agree) I don’t like open carry because I think it gives people the right to flaunt. I just don’t think that is healthy. Concealed is the other alternative. Works for me.
Actually I sort of feel the same way about prayer.
@Scout
Scout,
You and I differ on the efficacy of open-carry. While I don’t oppose it, I don’t do it. The reason I don’t is as alert as I am to my surroundings, I can never be 100%. I’ve read enough reports of the open-carry citizen having his or her weapon snatched right out of their holster, or worse, having an armed criminal “get the drop on them”. Why? Because the open-carrier surrenders a tactical advantage to the criminal, as the criminal engages in their victim-selection process.
Concealed-carry has the dual advantage of maintaining a tactical advantage (surprise) and also not alarming the citizenry who get all flustered at the sight of a gun on the hip of someone not in uniform.
If a gun owner is concerned about the tactical disadvantage of communicating that they have a gun, isn’t that exactly the reason why concealed carry should be banned? Everyone else has a tactical disadvantage of avoiding a gun-toting person if we don’t know they have a gun. If the gun is concealed I believe the gun owner is up to no good.
I believe (rightly or wrongly) that people who carry guns in the grocery store are mentally unstable and I want to avoid them. To avoid the deadly mistake of approaching them and having them mistakenly consider me a threat and have them quickly pull and dispatch a few bullets in my direction, I’ll simply move to the next isle. Giving gun owner a wide berth makes common sense since either they have poor risk analysis if they think the grocery store is a violent place or they have a lot of violent enemies which makes hanging around them risky.
If gun owners want to prevent their gun from being used against them they should invest in a smart gun or carry the bullets in their pocket like Barney Fife.
Ed, some people go in a grocery story carrying because they might be going to a questionable neighborhood or….maybe they have a job at the docks. You just don’t know. I don’t care to see their weapon.
I am fine with concealed carry. I think people who stick guns in the front of their pants are up to no good. I think people with holstered guns are 99% on the up and up.
@ed
Ed,
As Moon likes to point out (and I take this in the spirit offered) I tend to look at things from a “binary” perspective, elevating logic over emotion. So let’s take a look at your statement, shall we?
You believe people who carry a gun (an inanimate, amoral object) for self-defense are “mentally unstable”. I am assuming you believe their concerns regarding encountering an individual possessing criminal intent as “irrational”, and therefore, you wish to know who they are, so you can avoid them.
I believe people who carry a gun (an inanimate, amoral object) for self-defense are exercising a natural right to preserve their own lives, or the lives of their mates and children, from those possessing criminal intent, and the fact that crime, and criminals have existed since Hammurabi had his code scratched into clay cylinders, since paper hadn’t been invented yet.
You fear a group of your fellow citizens who commit crimes at a rate lower than LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS, who by the mere possession of an inanimate, amoral object, are “up to no good”. I fear a group of people responsible for almost 100% of the violent crime in society… Now, which of us has the irrational fear?
Now, I don’t want to alarm people like you, Ed. That’s why I carry concealed. I also carry concealed to maintain a tactical advantage, should a criminal choose me as he goes through his victim-selection process. If someone is intent on doing me physical harm, I don’t want to give them the chance to plan for how they will disarm me, prior to executing their assault.
Out of my desire to help you keep your boxers or briefs dry and comfy, I offer a bit of advice to you, for those times when you must run to the store to get food. If you want to avoid men and women who may be carrying openly of concealed, avoid the following areas of the Supermarket:
-The Meat case
-Any isle where bacon products are stocked
-The bread section containing the hoagie rolls
-The frozen foods case were microwave burritos, toquitos, barbecue chicken-wings and pizza-rolls are kept.
-The Beer Isle
Here are the “safe areas”
-The areas Soy products are stocked,
-The sprouted bread area
-The isle where wine-coolers are kept
-The yogurt section, especially that area where the yogurt is made from the milk of free-range unicorns.
One question though: If you were in the men’s restroom at the local Whole Foods and you encountered a man wearing a dress, wig, fishnet stockings AND a gun in a holster, would it be the attire or the firearm that would make you believe they are “mentally unstable” and “up to no good”?
You continue to make the mistake of subtracting all the criminals with guns from your statistics. People with guns don’t wear white and black hats to let the rest of us know if they are law abiding or not. Absent colored hats every person not in uniform with a gun is a danger. Every gun violence incident is owned by the gun owner’s community. You can’t take the good ones without the bad.
Your off-color joke about masculinity and gun owners does indicate your prejudices about others and that ties in with commentary about Zimmerman: his bias about young black men allowed his violent demeanor to play out and cause what I believe was a racially-motivated wrongful death. Your bias clouds your perception of risk and increases the probability 10-fold that you will use your gun in a fatal mistake rather than protect yourself or others from fatal tragedy.
@Steve Thomas
@ed
Ed,
It’s you who mistakenly lump everyone carrying a gun together, and argue that the very act implies a desire to do violence to another. Heck, you don’t even want Law Enforcement carrying guns. Fortunately, we have a 2nd Amendment that affirms our natural right to self-defense.
Off-color joke? How was that “off-color”? If you are offended by my sarcasm , then my intent was satisfied. I mean, if you think someone shopping for food is a threat, because you can’t tell whether or not they are armed, I thought it best to point you to the “safest” areas of the store.
I have no problem with pacifists. If they want to live their lives as potential victims, that is their choice. I am biased against whiney little men and women who demonize an amoral, inanimate object and those who “keep & bear” for lawful purposes, and insist that these people be potential victims too.
..and in case you didn’t know, Women are the fastest-growing segment of first-time gun-owners and applicants for concealed-carry. I know lots of women who own and regularly carry a firearm, for lawful self-defense, because they refuse to be victims. By your own words, you “fear them and believe they are mentally-unstable and up to no good”. That’s an irrational bias, Ed.
I’m trying to imagine what life is like for you, Ed. When you and a fellow shopper are reaching for that last can of vegan lentils or soy chicken nuggets, is your mind racing, you hoping they aren’t armed? When the lines are long at the check-out, and a cashier opens up another line, do you stay where you are, rather than move to the new line, for fear that one of those people re-positioning might start shooting, because they think you cut ahead?
Since I am feeling generous, I’ll give you another tip, to help you weed out the “good ones from the bad”, since we don’t wear tee-shirts or have warning stickers. If someone is pointing a gun at you, and you have done absolutely nothing to threaten them, they are likely a “bad one”, they want something you have, and are willing to hurt you to take it. This also applies to someone with a knife or other weapon, and even really big dudes who will just beat you to take what you want. Some are just plain mean, like this guy: https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=man%20hits%20woman%20with%20bat%20in%20walmart
Those who live by the gun will die by the gun. I have been more at risk from accidents caused by lawful gun owners (bullet holes in my bedroom from unknown exterior source, a bullet kicking up dirt a few feet from me fired by a hunter, plain clothed police pulling their weapons on me, etc) than by thugs. I’ve never been threatened or beaten or strong-armed or any other potential physical altercation where I would have been safer with a gun as a defensive response. My risk assessment is that strangers nearby with guns greatly increases my risk of death because of accident gun discharge and does not decrease my risk of death from those with evil intent.
Certainly judgmental people who have fragile egos that need to demean and bully others (@steve) may well feel a macho boast if they carry a gun just in case they encounter like-minded people. My interest is not to take away their right to kill each other, but to limit the collateral damage they do to others. Innocent lives should not be sacrificed because those who unnecessarily carry concealed have a character flaw that prevents them from acting in a civil manner. I want to avoid people who carry guns to bolster their ego because those people are more dangerous than a robber with a gun. At least with a robber I can give them money and they will go away but who knows what sets off egotists or what will mollify them.
@Ed Myers
” have been more at risk from accidents caused by lawful gun owners (bullet holes in my bedroom from unknown exterior source, a bullet kicking up dirt a few feet from me fired by a hunter, plain clothed police pulling their weapons on me, etc) than by thugs.”
You should move to a better neighborhood, Ed. I was an active-duty Marine for many years, so lead flying around in training or for real, was part of the deal. However, in the almost 2 decades since leaving active duty, I have spent many, many, many hours around guns, on ranges, and out and about in public. Haven’t once had a stray round come close to hitting me, or unexplained bullet holes appear near me. I’ve also had the occasion to be in the presence of many LEO’s, both unformed and plain-clothes. Never had a gun “pulled on me”.
That’s why I challenge you Ed. I don’t believe your clap-trap. I live in the real world, and take precautions against real threats. You, not sure what world you live in, but you might want to consider investing in some body-armor and bubble-wrap.