JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
Wow! Who would have expected the Federal District Court of D.C. would have been able to apply reasonable thought and analysis to an issue.

We will have to see the way this makes it way through the courts though on the way to the SCOTUS. Far be it from D.C. to stop just because a District Judge ruled against them.
 
The best part of this ruling is this:

the Court grants Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment and enjoins Defendants from enforcing the home limitations of D.C. Code § 7-2502.02(a)(4) and enforcing D.C. Code § 22-4504(a) unless and until such time as the District of Columbia adopts a licensing mechanism consistent with constitutional standards enabling people to exercise their Second Amendment right to bear arms.4 Furthermore, this injunction prohibits the District from completely banning the carrying of handguns in public for self-defense by otherwise qualified non-residents based solely on the fact that they are not residents of the District.

This is huge and sets a precedent throughout the 9th Circuit. It's like reciprocity, or a method for, carrying in general. It will be interesting to see where this goes.

Eagle
 
Wow! Who would have expected the Federal District Court of D.C. would have been able to apply reasonable thought and analysis to an issue.

We will have to see the way this makes it way through the courts though on the way to the SCOTUS. Far be it from D.C. to stop just because a District Judge ruled against them.

Very true, DC will fight this to the bitter end. I'm sure the DC Liberals were convulsing and foaming at the mouth over the decision.
 
Court ruling on D.C. carry ban could have broad implications


Today's ruling by the U.S. District Court in the District of Columbia that the city's ban on carrying of handguns outside the home doesn't stand up to constitutional muster "under any level of scrutiny" could have far-reaching implications.


<broken link removed>
 
It won't affect Multnomah as they do not completely ban both open and concealed carry. This was the reason the IL, CA and HI rulings found the bans unconstitutional, a complete ban based on LEO discretion . Regulations on the carry are still permitted.
 
Wow! Who would have expected the Federal District Court of D.C. would have been able to apply reasonable thought and analysis to an issue.

We will have to see the way this makes it way through the courts though on the way to the SCOTUS. Far be it from D.C. to stop just because a District Judge ruled against them.

It was a Bush-era appointee - a conservative and former military man. Once again, the conservatives stand up for the rights that liberals seem all to happy to take away (or have taken from them).

No doubt, the appeals were being prepared before the ruling was even issued. This 'win' will likely have little impact in a place that's looking more and more like a police state. We had to pass through there during a trip 2 years ago. While I was admiring the historical landmarks, the other part of me was just itching to get out of there - it just didn't feel like a safe place to be - because of the criminals and the politicians - heck, they're probably both the same people.
 
Anti-gun D.C. officials will move fast to stay landmark CCW ruling

Following the unusual Saturday release of the landmark right-to-carry ruling by U.S. District Court Judge Frederick J. Scullin, Jr., that the Washington Times said yesterday essentially guts the District of Columbia's gun laws banning carry of firearms outside the home, city officials are already working to put it on hold, the Washington Post reported today.

<broken link removed>
 
"...a licensing mechanism consistent with constitutional standards..."

This was decided in Heller. Heller and his attorney screwed up by permitting relief to be a license.

From Heller syllabus: "Because Heller conceded at oral argument that the D. C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfy his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement. Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home."

Although a rational person would consider a licensing requirement an "infringement", SCOTUS apparently does not.
 
And he judge has already ordered a stay of the verdict - to give DC time to draft new regulations or to file suit seeking to reverse this decision... and just like that, DC sucks again.
 
And he judge has already ordered a stay of the verdict - to give DC time to draft new regulations or to file suit seeking to reverse this decision... and just like that, DC sucks again.
I wonder if DC's police chief will reverse her statement now or just start arresting unsuspecting people.


Eagle
 

Upcoming Events

Tillamook Gun & Knife Show
Tillamook, OR
"The Original" Kalispell Gun Show
Kalispell, MT
Teen Rifle 1 Class
Springfield, OR
Kids Firearm Safety 2 Class
Springfield, OR

New Resource Reviews

New Classified Ads

Back Top