Googe1227 Posted February 1, 2015 at 06:49 AM Share Posted February 1, 2015 at 06:49 AM I wonder if my girlfriend Emily was one of the 8?Only if she's received death threats from some anti's. Which she probably has. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elmer Fudd Posted February 1, 2015 at 06:58 AM Share Posted February 1, 2015 at 06:58 AM 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 propertywhich includes showing a special need for self-protection distinguishable from the general communityas supported by evidence of specific threats or previous attacks which demonstrate a special danger tothe applicants life.The requirement of showing a special need for self-protection distinguishable from the generalcommunity as supported by evidence of specific threats or previous attacks includes language fromNew Jersey regulations defining the term justifiable need as well as New York Citys regulationsdefining the term proper cause. The requirement that the threats or attacks demonstrate a specialdanger to applicants life includes language contained in New Jersey regulations defining justifiableneed. The standard that a high crime area by itself does not establish good cause is language that appeared inthe 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 isemployment of a type that requires the handling of large amounts of cash or other highly valuableobjects that must be transported upon the applicants person. This standard, in some form, is found inthe laws or regulations of Maryland, New Jersey, and New York City. Another standard is the need fora parent, son, daughter, sibling or other adult member of the immediate family to provide protection of afamily member who is physically or mentally incapacitated to a point where he or she cannot act indefense of himself or herself, or his or her property. That standard was adapted from a similar standardthat 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 More sharing options...
Googe1227 Posted February 1, 2015 at 02:26 PM Share Posted February 1, 2015 at 02:26 PM 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 More sharing options...
Indigo Posted February 1, 2015 at 04:17 PM Share Posted February 1, 2015 at 04:17 PM Hasn't Alan Gura filed a motion for the court to file contempt of court charges against D.C.? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tkroenlein Posted February 1, 2015 at 04:37 PM Share Posted February 1, 2015 at 04:37 PM 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 More sharing options...
Hap Posted February 1, 2015 at 05:11 PM Share Posted February 1, 2015 at 05:11 PM 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 More sharing options...
skinnyb82 Posted February 2, 2015 at 11:28 PM Share Posted February 2, 2015 at 11:28 PM 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 More sharing options...
tkroenlein Posted February 2, 2015 at 11:55 PM Share Posted February 2, 2015 at 11:55 PM They're just throwing the biggest fit they can. I hope their may issue sceme dies soon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hap Posted February 4, 2015 at 03:14 AM Share Posted February 4, 2015 at 03:14 AM 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 More sharing options...
kwc Posted February 4, 2015 at 03:31 AM Share Posted February 4, 2015 at 03:31 AM It's good to see that another non-resident (this one from Florida) is a plaintiff in the new lawsuit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tkroenlein Posted February 4, 2015 at 04:43 AM Share Posted February 4, 2015 at 04:43 AM 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 More sharing options...
TFC Posted February 4, 2015 at 04:51 AM Share Posted February 4, 2015 at 04:51 AM This should be the final nail it it's coffin..."May issue" finally has a real chance of going the way of the do-do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Googe1227 Posted February 4, 2015 at 06:15 AM Share Posted February 4, 2015 at 06:15 AM One can only hope that's the case. Now, since this is a new lawsuit, how long until it makes it to appeals court or the supremes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tkroenlein Posted February 4, 2015 at 06:23 AM Share Posted February 4, 2015 at 06:23 AM It would sure as heck solidify the circuit split angle if Palmer and Peruta both shot down may issue. Then we'd have a proper rumble and maybe a bullet SCOTUS couldn't continue to dodge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hap Posted February 4, 2015 at 07:54 PM Share Posted February 4, 2015 at 07:54 PM Here's a copy of the complaint, filed yesterday. Wrenn et al v DC complaint.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ghk012 Posted February 4, 2015 at 08:14 PM Share Posted February 4, 2015 at 08:14 PM 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kwc Posted February 4, 2015 at 09:06 PM Share Posted February 4, 2015 at 09:06 PM 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 More sharing options...
Davey Posted February 4, 2015 at 11:57 PM Share Posted February 4, 2015 at 11:57 PM One can only hope that's the case. Now, since this is a new lawsuit, how long until it makes it to appeals court or the supremes?It will be years before this makes it to cert at the Supreme Court. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinnyb82 Posted February 19, 2015 at 02:23 AM Share Posted February 19, 2015 at 02:23 AM 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 More sharing options...
Hap Posted February 19, 2015 at 02:29 AM Share Posted February 19, 2015 at 02:29 AM Oral arguments get scheduled once all the briefs are in? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinnyb82 Posted February 22, 2015 at 08:29 PM Share Posted February 22, 2015 at 08:29 PM That is correct. Once the case is fully briefed, the Clerk of the Court will set a time and date for oral arguments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.