DC ban on gun carry overturned!

[9mmfan]

I've always wanted to visit the historical sights in D.C but have not done so because I would not be able to carry. If this holds true, I might be up for a visit. Would have to get some 10 mags for my Glock though.

 

[CathyInBlue]

Alan Gura and Alan Gottlieb should not be capable of paying for their own meals or drinks from sea to shining sea.

 

[mrjarrell]

I've always wanted to visit the historical sights in D.C but have not done so because I would not be able to carry. If this holds true, I might be up for a visit. Would have to get some 10 mags for my Glock though.

I wouldn't be counting on being able to carry there, just yet. As far as I know all of those are federal sites and the feds may have a different view. That's unknown at the moment. Wouldn't want to put the park police to the test.

 

[ryknoll3]

I wouldn't be counting on being able to carry there, just yet. As far as I know all of those are federal sites and the feds may have a different view. That's unknown at the moment. Wouldn't want to put the park police to the test.

^This. There's no way you're going to be allowed to carry on federal property, just as you can't know. For crap's sake, you can't even carry on a stupid river or adjacent woods that the feds control.

Also, I would tamp down my excitement over the prospect of carrying in D.C. This injunction is only effective until such time as the D.C. Council crafts a carry bill. Open carry will be prohibited and concealed carry will be heavily regulated. Just look at how they handled the SCOTUS ruling on their gun ban. The provisions they came up with for registering handguns were and still are pretty onerous. I would expect no less from a CCW bill. Think at least as restrictive as Illinois, IF they go with a shall-issue bill. They don't have a conservative Democrat rural sect pushing them to go shall-issue. They may have to offer non-resident permits because of the language of this ruling, but I doubt there will be any reciprocity, just like IL.

Between all of the gun-free zones they will establish, parks, public trans., bars, restaurants that serve alcohol, museums, public gatherings, etc... coupled with the fact that so much of D.C. is federal property, you probably wouldn't be able to carry much there anyways.

The ruling itself is great for the 2A. I fear that the statutes that are born out of this ruling will be be a steaming pile of .

 

[IndyDave1776]

I wouldn't be counting on being able to carry there, just yet. As far as I know all of those are federal sites and the feds may have a different view. That's unknown at the moment. Wouldn't want to put the park police to the test.

It speaks volumes that in an ostensibly free country in which this is an enumerated right that one even has to consider this issue.

 

[mrjarrell]

It speaks volumes that in an ostensibly free country in which this is an enumerated right that one even has to consider this issue.

Why do you hate the 10th Amendment, Dave?

j/k. The Constitution allows for regulation, according to those who love the 10th. And that's the way it was till incorporation came along. The 14th has allowed us to regain our Rights in this regard. Before it was all up to the states. Now it isn't. Of course this is just another case of judicial activism. One that goes in our favour, but activism, nonetheless.

 

[brotherbill3]

^This. There's no way you're going to be allowed to carry on federal property, just as you can't know. For crap's sake, you can't even carry on a stupid river or adjacent woods that the feds control.

Also, I would tamp down my excitement over the prospect of carrying in D.C. This injunction is only effective until such time as the D.C. Council crafts a carry bill. Open carry will be prohibited and concealed carry will be heavily regulated. Just look at how they handled the SCOTUS ruling on their gun ban. The provisions they came up with for registering handguns were and still are pretty onerous. I would expect no less from a CCW bill. Think at least as restrictive as Illinois, IF they go with a shall-issue bill. They don't have a conservative Democrat rural sect pushing them to go shall-issue. They may have to offer non-resident permits because of the language of this ruling, but I doubt there will be any reciprocity, just like IL.

Between all of the gun-free zones they will establish, parks, public trans., bars, restaurants that serve alcohol, museums, public gatherings, etc... coupled with the fact that so much of D.C. is federal property, you probably wouldn't be able to carry much there anyways.

The ruling itself is great for the 2A. I fear that the statutes that are born out of this ruling will be be a steaming pile of .

Admittedly I have not read the whole ruling; and I do not have time now; but based on the quote (post #96) from the ruling - I see reciprocity as part of the courts requirements. ... not that they will willingly comply if they can get away with less either. ... ugh. OK

 

[ryknoll3]

Admittedly I have not read the whole ruling; and I do not have time now; but based on the quote (post #96) from the ruling - I see reciprocity as part of the courts requirements. ... not that they will willingly comply if they can get away with less either. ... ugh. OK

The quote is that they can't prohibit non-residents from carrying solely because they are not residents of the district. That doesn't mean reciprocity at all. Once they come up with a permitting scheme, they can simply make non-residents get a D.C. permit in order to carry. Then they would not be prohibiting non-residents from carrying based solely on the fact that they aren't residents. It would be based on the fact that they don't have D.C.'s permit. Expect their non-resident permit to be expensive (Illinois' non-res permit [which only residents of HI, NM, SC, and VA can get] is $300, with 16 hours of training required).

 

[IndyDave1776]

Why do you hate the 10th Amendment, Dave?

j/k. The Constitution allows for regulation, according to those who love the 10th. And that's the way it was till incorporation came along. The 14th has allowed us to regain our Rights in this regard. Before it was all up to the states. Now it isn't. Of course this is just another case of judicial activism. One that goes in our favour, but activism, nonetheless.

I have a difficult time with the notion that the Tenth Amendment excuses the states from honoring enumerated rights. The Constitution was ratified by every state extant at the time of its writing. The Amendments were ratified by these same states. How can one reconcile not recognizing rights that they signed on accepting as inherent rights, not rights granted at the pleasure of any government? To make any argument that signing on to the Constitution while believing that states have the right to violate these same natural rights strikes me as being analogous to an atheist joining a church while retaining his non-belief in God.

 

[SteveM4A1]

I have a difficult time with the notion that the Tenth Amendment excuses the states from honoring enumerated rights. The Constitution was ratified by every state extant at the time of its writing. The Amendments were ratified by these same states. How can one reconcile not recognizing rights that they signed on accepting as inherent rights, not rights granted at the pleasure of any government? To make any argument that signing on to the Constitution while believing that states have the right to violate these same natural rights strikes me as being analogous to an atheist joining a church while retaining his non-belief in God.

"While we deny that Congress have a right to controul the freedom of the press, we have ever asserted the right of the states, and their exclusive right to do so." -Thomas Jefferson to Abigail Adams

 

[Alamo]

Current guidance to the DC police. Subject to change without notice:

http://alangura.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/07-137-14.pdf

Gura's discussion of it: Your D.C. Handgun Carry Permit ? UPDATED | Reality-Based Litigation

 

[JeremiahJohnson]

Current guidance to the DC police. Subject to change without notice:

http://alangura.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/07-137-14.pdf

Gura's discussion of it: Your D.C. Handgun Carry Permit ? UPDATED | Reality-Based Litigation

Sounds like full reciprocity to me...at least until the stay...and then regulating it out of existance. A small window of freedom for the country's capital. Drink it in.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

The organ of the flagpole finally weighs in: Response to Judge's Handgun Ruling Is Mixed and Muddled in D.C.

 

[TheSpark]

I think I would still be fearful of carrying in public in DC. Sounds like at anytime they could get an injunction that would be effective immediately and all of a sudden you would be violating their unconstitutional laws.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

D.C. seeks to stay judge's order allowing gun owners to carry in public - Washington Times

 

[JeremiahJohnson]

The organ of the flagpole finally weighs in: Response to Judge's Handgun Ruling Is Mixed and Muddled in D.C.

"But members and staffers already have weapons privileges for the Capitol campus dating back decades"

There's irony for you. The very people voting to remove 2A rights from citizens enjoy the privilege in (previously) the most restricted 2A area in the US.

 

[JeremiahJohnson]

D.C. seeks to stay judge's order allowing gun owners to carry in public - Washington Times

She noted that the ruling applies only to handguns and not long guns or shotguns and that nothing in the ruling prevents private businesses from prohibiting firearms on their property

Read more: D.C. seeks to stay judge's order allowing gun owners to carry in public - Washington Times
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter
​

Wow. Is that true anywhere else in the US?

 

[CathyInBlue]

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

More computer hijinks from the Feds.

Computer glitch caused odd Saturday release of D.C. guns ruling - Washington Times

The computer used by the clerk responsible for this ruling was down on Friday, which is why it wasn't published then. The federal worker actually came in on Saturday to get caught up on work and that was when the filing was made official, catching everyone off guard.

 

[CathyInBlue]

According to NRA News: Cam & Co. (Sponsored by Nosler)'s first comments this afternoon, there's been a 90 stay (until Oct. 22) of the ruling for the D.C. City Council to pull their heads outta their posteriors and write a public carry statute that can pass Constitutional muster.

Who wants to bet me Oct. 22 will come and go and there will be no vote on a licensing scheme whatsoever?

 

[rockhopper46038]

We can hope. If there is no action the ruling takes effect again, hopefully with the judge being less willing to offer an additional stay.