Little-Acorn
05-19-2015, 01:21 PM
Several years ago, the Supreme Court ruled that the Washington DC government' policy of not issuing any permits for people to own guns, was unconstitutional. This came as no surprise except a few gun-rights-hating liberals.
After several courts repeating the same thing over and over, DC finally said they would issue the permits... but put so many silly conditions on them, that it was nearly impossible for any normal, law-abiding people to get one. Crime continued to soar in DC as the city govt cracked down, not on criminals, but on the law-abiding.
Now the DC District court has said, yet again, that the DC govt's silly restrictions were just as unconstitutional as their original no-guns-at-all-for-the-law-abiding stance was.
I reiterate my proposal that the Cosntitution be amended - to include penalties for those who violate it and are found guilty of doing so in the courts. This lawbreaking bunch in the DC govt and police force would have been long gone.
And a lot more people who are now dead in DC, would still be alive, if law-abiding people been allowed to defend themselves as the Constitution provides. Even though most people still wouldn't have bothered to arm themselves, a few would have. And a lot more criminals would have been a lot more careful around people who might be legally armed against them.
---------------------------------------------
http://legalinsurrection.com/2015/05/big-2a-win-court-strikes-dc-requirement-of-good-reason-for-concealed-carry-permit/
Big 2A Win – Court strikes DC requirement of “good reason” for concealed carry permit
Posted by Andrew Branca
Monday, May 18, 2015 at 8:35pm
As some of you may be aware, Attorney Alan Gura has been waging a legal battle against the District of Columbia (as well as other jurisdictions) based upon their unconstitutional infringement of the Second Amendment generally, and DC residents concealed carry rights in particular.
Having already won a court decision compelling the District–and in particular, its Police Chief Cathy Lanier (pictured above)–to issue concealed carry permits to lawful, qualified residents, Gura naturally ran into the usual anti-gun rearguard position: “Sure, we’ll issue permits–on terms of our own choosing. Terms that nobody except our rich friends and political comrades will ever be deemed to have satisfied.”
And those terms invariably require that the applicant have some special and unusual reason to be granted a concealed carry permit. This is the kind of restriction still being employed in liberal states like New Jersey and New York, and which was being employed in California until the recent Peruta decision by the 9th Circuit.
Gura responded to Lanier’s demand that applications show some special reason–above and beyond simply being law-abiding Americans with civil rights–by filing a motion for an injunction with the US District Court for DC, to prohibit Lanier from imposing those special conditions.
Today that Court handed down its decision on the requested motion–and Gura was the big winner, again:
After reviewing the entire file in this matter, the parties’ submissions and the applicable law, and for the above-stated reasons, the Court hereby
ORDERS that Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction is GRANTED; and the Court further
ORDERS that Defendants, their officers, agents, servants, employees, and all persons in active concert or participation with them who receive actual notice of the injunction are enjoined from enforcing the requirement of D.C. Code § 22-4506(a) that handgun carry license applicants have a “good reason to fear injury to his or her person or property or has any other proper reason for carrying a pistol,” including, but not limited to, the manner in which that requirement is defined by D.C. Code § 7-2509.11 and 24 D.C.M.R. §§ 2333.1, 2333.2, 2333.3, 2333.4, and 2334.1, against Plaintiffs Brian Wrenn, Joshua Akery, Tyler Whidby, and other members of Plaintiff Second Amendment Foundation, Inc.; and the Court further
ORDERS that Defendants, their officers, agents, servants, employees, and all persons in active concert or participation with them who receive actual notice of the injunction, are enjoined from denying handgun carry licenses to applicants who meet the requirements of D.C. Code 22- 4506(a) and all other current requirements for the possession and carrying of handguns under District of Columbia law; and the Court further
ORDERS that, pursuant to Rule 65(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiffs shall post security in the amount of $1,000.00; and the Court further
ORDERS that counsel shall appear for a conference with the Court on Tuesday, July 7, 2015, at 11:00 a.m. to discuss an expedited schedule for the resolution of this case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
After several courts repeating the same thing over and over, DC finally said they would issue the permits... but put so many silly conditions on them, that it was nearly impossible for any normal, law-abiding people to get one. Crime continued to soar in DC as the city govt cracked down, not on criminals, but on the law-abiding.
Now the DC District court has said, yet again, that the DC govt's silly restrictions were just as unconstitutional as their original no-guns-at-all-for-the-law-abiding stance was.
I reiterate my proposal that the Cosntitution be amended - to include penalties for those who violate it and are found guilty of doing so in the courts. This lawbreaking bunch in the DC govt and police force would have been long gone.
And a lot more people who are now dead in DC, would still be alive, if law-abiding people been allowed to defend themselves as the Constitution provides. Even though most people still wouldn't have bothered to arm themselves, a few would have. And a lot more criminals would have been a lot more careful around people who might be legally armed against them.
---------------------------------------------
http://legalinsurrection.com/2015/05/big-2a-win-court-strikes-dc-requirement-of-good-reason-for-concealed-carry-permit/
Big 2A Win – Court strikes DC requirement of “good reason” for concealed carry permit
Posted by Andrew Branca
Monday, May 18, 2015 at 8:35pm
As some of you may be aware, Attorney Alan Gura has been waging a legal battle against the District of Columbia (as well as other jurisdictions) based upon their unconstitutional infringement of the Second Amendment generally, and DC residents concealed carry rights in particular.
Having already won a court decision compelling the District–and in particular, its Police Chief Cathy Lanier (pictured above)–to issue concealed carry permits to lawful, qualified residents, Gura naturally ran into the usual anti-gun rearguard position: “Sure, we’ll issue permits–on terms of our own choosing. Terms that nobody except our rich friends and political comrades will ever be deemed to have satisfied.”
And those terms invariably require that the applicant have some special and unusual reason to be granted a concealed carry permit. This is the kind of restriction still being employed in liberal states like New Jersey and New York, and which was being employed in California until the recent Peruta decision by the 9th Circuit.
Gura responded to Lanier’s demand that applications show some special reason–above and beyond simply being law-abiding Americans with civil rights–by filing a motion for an injunction with the US District Court for DC, to prohibit Lanier from imposing those special conditions.
Today that Court handed down its decision on the requested motion–and Gura was the big winner, again:
After reviewing the entire file in this matter, the parties’ submissions and the applicable law, and for the above-stated reasons, the Court hereby
ORDERS that Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction is GRANTED; and the Court further
ORDERS that Defendants, their officers, agents, servants, employees, and all persons in active concert or participation with them who receive actual notice of the injunction are enjoined from enforcing the requirement of D.C. Code § 22-4506(a) that handgun carry license applicants have a “good reason to fear injury to his or her person or property or has any other proper reason for carrying a pistol,” including, but not limited to, the manner in which that requirement is defined by D.C. Code § 7-2509.11 and 24 D.C.M.R. §§ 2333.1, 2333.2, 2333.3, 2333.4, and 2334.1, against Plaintiffs Brian Wrenn, Joshua Akery, Tyler Whidby, and other members of Plaintiff Second Amendment Foundation, Inc.; and the Court further
ORDERS that Defendants, their officers, agents, servants, employees, and all persons in active concert or participation with them who receive actual notice of the injunction, are enjoined from denying handgun carry licenses to applicants who meet the requirements of D.C. Code 22- 4506(a) and all other current requirements for the possession and carrying of handguns under District of Columbia law; and the Court further
ORDERS that, pursuant to Rule 65(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiffs shall post security in the amount of $1,000.00; and the Court further
ORDERS that counsel shall appear for a conference with the Court on Tuesday, July 7, 2015, at 11:00 a.m. to discuss an expedited schedule for the resolution of this case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.