Jump to content

Palmer vs DC - WIN! Ban on Carry declared unconstitutional


Molly B.

Recommended Posts

http://mpdc.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/mpdc/page_content/attachments/Concealed%20Carry%20License_GoodReason%20Application_fillableform.pdf

 

 

 

http://mpdc.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/mpdc/page_content/attachments/ConcealedCarryLicenseApplicationInstructions102214_FINAL.pdf

 

 

 

Good Reason To Fear Injury To Person Or Property

 

These regulations include the Acts standards for good reasons to fear injury to person or property

which includes showing a special need for self-protection distinguishable from the general community

as supported by evidence of specific threats or previous attacks which demonstrate a special danger to

the applicants life.

The requirement of showing a special need for self-protection distinguishable from the general

community as supported by evidence of specific threats or previous attacks includes language from

New Jersey regulations defining the term justifiable need as well as New York Citys regulations

defining the term proper cause. The requirement that the threats or attacks demonstrate a special

danger to applicants life includes language contained in New Jersey regulations defining justifiable

need.

 

The standard that a high crime area by itself does not establish good cause is language that appeared in

the Districts prior concealed carry regulations and also appears in New York regulations.

 

Other Proper Reason for Carrying a Pistol

 

These regulations establish standards for other proper reasons for carrying a pistol. One standard is

employment of a type that requires the handling of large amounts of cash or other highly valuable

objects that must be transported upon the applicants person. This standard, in some form, is found in

the laws or regulations of Maryland, New Jersey, and New York City. Another standard is the need for

a parent, son, daughter, sibling or other adult member of the immediate family to provide protection of a

family member who is physically or mentally incapacitated to a point where he or she cannot act in

defense of himself or herself, or his or her property. That standard was adapted from a similar standard

that appeared in MPDs prior regulations.

Thanks for a good analysis of what is happening here....the fact that they have approved 8 out of 69 applications which is a roughly 12% of the applicants is more telling....its a "may issue" statute, and only time will tell how this plays out....its a start and hopefully it continues to evolve...not what it ought be but, better than zero.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd be interested in finding out how many of the 88% rejected actually have "good cause" as defined in the law but were still rejected.

 

I think it's safe to assume that 99% of the people in DC that want to exercise RTKBA are sitting on the sidelines because they lack "good cause".

 

Just think about the large number of folks in Illinois that don't have the funds to complete the training and pay for the license and are sitting this out. Illinois pols get them through simple economics; DC just makes the bar even higher.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that a "family member who is physically or mentally incapacitated to a point where he or she cannot act in defense of himself or herself" is interesting. What about a 3 year old child? Or what about an 105 lb wife? Does that count? What objective standard could possibly be applied to make this determination?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that a "family member who is physically or mentally incapacitated to a point where he or she cannot act in defense of himself or herself" is interesting. What about a 3 year old child? Or what about an 105 lb wife? Does that count? What objective standard could possibly be applied to make this determination?

 

I'd say "unarmed" satisfies the stated criterion. It's physical, it's incapacitating to the point where the person cannot act (effectively) in his or her own defense, and it's objectively verifiable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How does this not moot D.C.'s appeal? They state that they complied with Scullin's order, they enacted a licensing scheme, albeit begrudgingly, and the District makes no argument that the carriage outside the home falls outside the scope Second Amendment protection. Well, they do, but that argument won't stand since they've also stated that the licensing scheme is constitutional so...what is there to appeal? The order? The refusal to grant a motion to stay the order? "Judge Scullin refused to stay his order, he forced us to do this....wah wah" isn't gonna fly when they didn't go to CADC with a motion to stay pending appeal, especially when a motions panel stated that the case must be heard by a merits panel, then denied Gura's motions. I would hope that CADC would issue a Rule 38 OSC as to why appellants should not be sanctioned for filing a frivolous appeal.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

SAF filed suit today against DC's may-issue scheme. Article at TTAG, with a pointer to an article at the American University Radio site: http://wamu.org/news/15/02/03/dc_sued_over_restrictive_concealed_carry_law

 

 

In the lawsuit filed today in U.S. District Court, two D.C. residents, one Florida resident and a Washington state-based gun rights group claim that the city's new permitting scheme is so restrictive that it represents an unconstitutional infringement on the Second Amendment.

 

"The Second Amendment right to bear arms includes the right to carry functional, loaded handguns in public areas for the purpose of self-defense," reads the lawsuit, which was filed by pro-gun attorney Alan Gura.

 

"This right, like others, is subject to some degree of regulation, but its status as a right precludes the government from regulating it out of existence or forcing individuals to prove their entitlement to its exercise," it argues.

 

According to the article the suit takes aim squarely at may-issue:

 

 

"Individuals cannot be required to prove a 'good reason' or 'other proper reason' for the exercise of fundamental constitutional rights, including the right to keep and bear arms," it says.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

SAF filed suit today against DC's may-issue scheme. Article at TTAG, with a pointer to an article at the American University Radio site: http://wamu.org/news/15/02/03/dc_sued_over_restrictive_concealed_carry_law

 

 

 

In the lawsuit filed today in U.S. District Court, two D.C. residents, one Florida resident and a Washington state-based gun rights group claim that the city's new permitting scheme is so restrictive that it represents an unconstitutional infringement on the Second Amendment.

 

"The Second Amendment right to bear arms includes the right to carry functional, loaded handguns in public areas for the purpose of self-defense," reads the lawsuit, which was filed by pro-gun attorney Alan Gura.

 

"This right, like others, is subject to some degree of regulation, but its status as a right precludes the government from regulating it out of existence or forcing individuals to prove their entitlement to its exercise," it argues.

 

According to the article the suit takes aim squarely at may-issue:

 

 

"Individuals cannot be required to prove a 'good reason' or 'other proper reason' for the exercise of fundamental constitutional rights, including the right to keep and bear arms," it says.

 

Well that didn't take long, now did it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks Hap for the complaint. I am surprised Gura didn't quote Peruta. Maybe complaints are just that, superficial notice of the wrong doing and they will get to the meat and tators when the case goes to trial.

Would it be wise to cite a decision (like Peruta) that is being considered for potential en banc review?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Latest entry on CADC docket from a couple weeks ago (2/3/15) setting the case briefing schedule:

 

02/03/2015 CLERK'S ORDER filed [1535753] setting briefing schedule: APPELLANT Brief due 03/16/2015. APPENDIX due 03/16/2015. APPELLEE Brief due on 04/15/2015. APPELLANT Reply Brief due 04/29/2015 [14-7180]

 

D.C.'s brief is due in less than a month, that oughtta be a good read. I'd expect it to open with something like this: "Don't make us issue carry permits to people based on ridiculous, bordering on the insane, criteria that we do not even understand!" We passed a law but we didn't want to!"

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...