Jump to content

Palmer vs DC - WIN! Ban on Carry declared unconstitutional


Molly B.

Recommended Posts

 

Are there any pro or anti organizations working with the local DC lawmakers to help them frame a new set of regulations?

Or are they being left to their own devices?

 

 

It is very likely that the Legal Center to Prevent Gun Violence has offered to help the city craft laws that will reduce gun ownership and the possession and carrying of firearms with regulations that haven't yet been ruled unconstitutional.

 

http://smartgunlaws.org/

 

 

Of course, if they get too carried away with this sort of thing, back up in court they will wind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally, I think the quibbling over whether the carrying of firearms in public makes things safer or not serves little purpose. There is no real strong evidence that it makes all that much difference one way or the other. Chicago and NYC had fairly similar firearms laws for a lot of years with radically different murder rates.

 

The 2A says the "right of the people...". It's a right and not something dependant on whether it serves any useful purpose or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally, I think the quibbling over whether the carrying of firearms in public makes things safer or not serves little purpose. There is no real strong evidence that it makes all that much difference one way or the other. Chicago and NYC had fairly similar firearms laws for a lot of years with radically different murder rates.

 

The 2A says the "right of the people...". It's a right and not something dependant on whether it serves any useful purpose or not.

Exactly, lacking strong evidence that legally carrying firearms in public significantly endangers the public it should not be restricted.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I came across an interesting article on the Plaintiff in Palmer.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/crime/self-described-peacenik-challenged-dc-gun-law-and-won/2014/08/08/d3d69acc-1cd7-11e4-82f9-2cd6fa8da5c4_story.html

 

It certainly bursts the bubble of those who believe that gun rights advocates are all white rednecks "clinging to their guns and religion". Bravo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Skinny... You have the ability to give us the facts and explain to us in layman terms what is actually happening. Most really appreciate your insights... please don't stop being the person we can count on for plain English translation. Your insights are priceless... Thanks for everything you've done for us. Don't get frustrated when us who don't speak legalese daily ask dumb questions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Personally, I think the quibbling over whether the carrying of firearms in public makes things safer or not serves little purpose. There is no real strong evidence that it makes all that much difference one way or the other. Chicago and NYC had fairly similar firearms laws for a lot of years with radically different murder rates.

 

The 2A says the "right of the people...". It's a right and not something dependant on whether it serves any useful purpose or not.

Exactly, lacking strong evidence that legally carrying firearms in public significantly endangers the public it should not be restricted.

 

Strong evidence ought not be enough. We should be aiming for the "immanent threat" standard that speech restrictions are judged against.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The districts are triers of fact. The appellate courts review the district court rulings for errors. Again, does ANYONE ever bother to read the opinion?

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk 2

Some people read them and can't understand them some people are at work and don't have time to read them and are anxious to know what happened some people are reading them from a cell phone and some people just want a quick summary if possible. But I do understand your frustration

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I work full time, no kids or wife (thank God haha) but my job sometimes requires me to put in 80+ hrs/week and I also travel for work.

 

Until the standard of review is strict scrutiny for any pleading involving an infringement on Second Amendment rights, it will ALWAYS be a balancing act between individual civil liberties and public safety. The only way to get that is to get a new case in front of SCOTUS and basically amend Heller, bolster it. Otherwise, it makes no difference what I say or what anyone believes. The GCA would have to be wiped of a huge chunk of it declared unconstitutional. Until then, it's a moot point because the current standard of review is "heightened scrutiny" or "not quite strict scrutiny." Friedman, or any AWB case, would be an excellent vehicle for elevating the standard to strict scrutiny.

 

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk 2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought I read in the Washington paper the other day, that D.C. Has filed for an extension. I thought some here would have said something about that or posted a link.

Now excuse me while I try and find what I was reading.

 

Ok here it is...

http://www.guns.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/Case-1-09-cv-01482-FJS-Document-60.pdf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

 

I think you meant "may issue."

 

 

As usual, Gura's arguments are so eloquently stated. I love this: "But Defendants do not suggest that they will issue licenses to the Plaintiffs, who obviously cannot meet the Defendants’ new/old standards, so how is it that Plaintiffs’ injury is resolved? Plaintiffs did not sue for an administrative adjudication, for the right to discover the police chief’s opinion of whether they deserve to carry defensive handguns. That much was never a secret. Plaintiffs sued for a constitutional right."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I think you meant "may issue."

 

 

As usual, Gura's arguments are so eloquently stated. I love this: "But Defendants do not suggest that they will issue licenses to the Plaintiffs, who obviously cannot meet the Defendants’ new/old standards, so how is it that Plaintiffs’ injury is resolved? Plaintiffs did not sue for an administrative adjudication, for the right to discover the police chief’s opinion of whether they deserve to carry defensive handguns. That much was never a secret. Plaintiffs sued for a constitutional right."

 

Nicely written. BTW, I read the entirety of DCs new law. It is basically "no issue" unless you're best friends w/ the police chief or a big political donor calling in a favor...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

In particular, the phrase about the 2nd Amendment being there just "because the British were coming" makes me want to club baby seals (figuratively).

 

What have you got against clubbing baby seals?

 

Is that a new thing? Because in my clubbing days I don't recall running into any seals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, I have a feeling we are going to get to see what would have happened in Illinois if the legislature wouldn't have pushed through a law, that while not perfect, at least made an attempt to comply with the judge's ruling. D.C. seems to be continually thumbing their nose at the bench. I wouldn't be surprised if the judge comes back and decides all bets are off. Open carry, concealed carry, whatever, it is all legal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...