Quantcast
  1. Sign up now and join over 35,000 northwest gun owners. It's quick, easy, and 100% free!

Federal judge blocks 'good reason' requirement in DC

Discussion in 'Firearm Laws & Legal' started by Dave Workman, May 17, 2016.

  1. Dave Workman

    Dave Workman Western Washington Bronze Supporter Bronze Supporter

    Messages:
    3,225
    Likes Received:
    2,390
    Federal judge blocks ‘good reason’ requirement of D.C carry law
    ;)
    A federal judge today ruled that the requirement to show a “good reason” to obtain a carry permit in Washington, D.C. "likely places an unconstitutional burden" on the right to carry firearms for self-defense outside the home, and ordered the District’s police department to stop requiring applicants to provide that information, according to theWashington Timesand other publications.


    http://www.examiner.com/article/federal-judge-blocks-good-reason-requirement-of-d-c-carry-law
     
    Dyjital, Sgt Nambu, Stomper and 5 others like this.
  2. Larrytpdx

    Larrytpdx Portland, OR Bronze Supporter Bronze Supporter

    Messages:
    1,097
    Likes Received:
    1,820
    And this is a district/city that wants to be a state? No way.
     
  3. CamoDeafie

    CamoDeafie Albany Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    787
    Likes Received:
    669
    Wait a minute. le gasps. The DOJ declares that Federal properties and Federal territory must abide by the same Constitution as States must? SHOCKING! :eek::rolleyes: (I remember an article somewhere on where citizens that live in District of Columbia, and other Federal territories if any, do not have the same rights afforded to those who live in the 50 States and other Territories)
     
    nammac likes this.
  4. Goosebrown

    Goosebrown Beaverton Bronze Supporter Bronze Supporter 2015 Volunteer

    Messages:
    965
    Likes Received:
    1,450
    This is great news in a great week of news.

    The take away here is that a federal judge stated there is a right to carry outside the home and THAT is new from a legal aspect.

    The CA case on sales is important because it extends strict scrutiny to cases that would limit the core right of owning a gun.
     
  5. 2A2Dend

    2A2Dend .. Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,561
    Likes Received:
    1,848
    Every non-felon law abiding citizen (unless legally found incompetent or insane) should be able to acquire (and carry) a concealed weapon for their protection. It's a right. Not a privilege.

    I recall back in the early 80's when I got my CWP, a reason was required why I wanted it.
    Uhh, protection? :confused:
     
    Logan Wilson and Sgt Nambu like this.
  6. Stomper

    Stomper Oceania Rising White Is The New Brown Silver Supporter

    Messages:
    12,913
    Likes Received:
    19,577
    This seems to be the beginning of the end to "may issue" States' practices... we're coming for you CA, HI, NY, NJ and IL!!
     
    Last edited: May 20, 2016
  7. David Bowman

    David Bowman Beaverton OR Archer Defense Concepts

    Messages:
    229
    Likes Received:
    462
    Easy fix... :s0153:

    Everyone in the media business must now provide a "good reason" in order to process their job application as a journalist.

    Every atheist must now provide a "good reason" for not attending church.

    Every person must provide a "good reason" on their voter registration.

    See D.C. turd-burglars; we can play this game too.....
     
    Dyjital and Logan Wilson like this.
  8. The Heretic

    The Heretic Oregon Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    5,113
    Likes Received:
    6,948
    Another judge told the Marriana Islands gov. that even thought they are a territory, that citizens there have the same rights as in the rest of the USA. So because they couldn't ban guns anymore, they put a $1000 tax on them.
     
    CamoDeafie likes this.
  9. Goosebrown

    Goosebrown Beaverton Bronze Supporter Bronze Supporter 2015 Volunteer

    Messages:
    965
    Likes Received:
    1,450
    Which is just what the California case made illegal (zoning and taxes are equivalent in this regard). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minneapolis_Star_Tribune_Co._v._Commissioner

    They also lost on Peruta last year, that is on appeal. And Hawaii lost on Baker v. Kealoha. Those are waiting for en Banc rulings and then to the supreme court.
     
    The Heretic likes this.
  10. Stomper

    Stomper Oceania Rising White Is The New Brown Silver Supporter

    Messages:
    12,913
    Likes Received:
    19,577
    Dang.... I sure hope a suitable Justice gets plugged into the empty SCOTUS spot before that happens!! o_O
     
    Goosebrown likes this.
  11. Goosebrown

    Goosebrown Beaverton Bronze Supporter Bronze Supporter 2015 Volunteer

    Messages:
    965
    Likes Received:
    1,450
    Well that is a long shot. It sure would have been nice to get them to the court before Scalia retired.
     
  12. RicInOR

    RicInOR Washington County Bronze Supporter Bronze Supporter

    Messages:
    3,906
    Likes Received:
    4,717
  13. ZigZagZeke

    ZigZagZeke Eugene Silver Supporter Silver Supporter 2015 Volunteer

    Messages:
    2,706
    Likes Received:
    3,545
    It is particularly irritating because what the framers intended is very clearly what any rational person understands from reading the 2nd Amendment:

    "II. The Intent of the Framers of the Second Amendment

    The Supreme Court has held that "when we do have evidence that a particular law would have offended the Framers, we have not hesitated to invalidate it on that ground alone." Minneapolis Star v. Minnesota Comm. of Rev., 460 U.S. 575, 583-84 n.6 (1983).

    It is precisely because the framers wanted to promote a well regulated militia composed of the populace at large that they insisted that the people have a right to keep and bear arms. Concern for the militia does not logically negate recognition of the people's right to keep and bear arms. Far from being mutually exclusive, the militia and this right sustain each other.

    Of the eight state bills of rights adopted before the federal Constitution, four recognized the right of "the people" to bear arms. None of these were contained in a militia clause, nor was the term "bear arms" limited to war usage. For instance, the Pennsylvania Declaration of Rights, Art. XIII (1776) provided: "That the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves, and the state... ."

    In The Federalist No. 46, James Madison alluded to "the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation." Madison, Hamilton, and Jay, The Federalist Papers 299 (Arlington House ed. n.d.) Madison continued, "Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." Id.

    Noah Webster, the influential federalist whose name still appears on dictionaries, stated: "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed... ." Pamphlets on the Constitution of the United States 56 (P. Ford ed. 1888).

    Insisting on a Bill of Rights, Richard Henry Lee wrote that "to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them ... " R. Lee, Additional Letters from The Federal Farmer 170 (1788). The Supreme Court has noted: "The remarks of Richard Henry Lee are typical of the rejoinders of the Antifederalists... . The concerns voiced by the Antifederalists led to the adoption of the Bill of Rights... ." Minneapolis Star v. Minnesota Corn. of Rev., 460 U.S. 575, 584 (1983).

    In the Virginia ratifying convention, Patrick Henry argued, "the great object is, that every man be armed... . Everyone who is able may have a gun." 3 Elliot, Debates in the Several State Conventions 386 (1836). Accordingly, the Virginia convention proposed a declaration of individual rights, including: "That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state... ." Id. at 659.

    Virginia also proposed an entirely separate body of amendments concerning governmental powers, including: "That each state respectively shall have the power to provide for organizing, arming, and discipline its own militia, whensoever Congress shall omit or neglect to provide for the same." Id. at 660.

    When James Madison proposed the Bill of Rights in 1789, he wrote that the proposed amendments concerning the press and arms "relate first to private rights." 12 Madison Papers 193-194 (Rutland ed. 1979). Ten days after its introduction, federalist leader Tench Coxe wrote of what became the Second Amendment: "As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow-citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms." Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789, at 2, col. 1 (emphasis added). Madison endorsed Coxe's analysis, which was reprinted without contradiction. See 12 Madison Papers at 239-40, 257 (1979).

    When the constitutional amendments were being debated in Congress, the state-militia guarantee proposed by the Virginia convention was rejected. Journal of the First Session of the Senate 75 (1820). Thus, Congress passed the Bill of Rights, which guaranteed "the right of the people to keep and bear arms," and rejected an explicit "power" of "each state" to provide for militias. No court has ever acknowledged awareness of this fact. Through an Orwellian rewriting of history, adherents of an exclusive state militia power appear to claim that the defeated amendment is really what passed in the Second Amendment.

    The Framers assigned promotion of a well regulated militia as the leading purpose of what is nonetheless the "right of the people to keep and bear arms." One would not expect the Framers to state in a serious political charter a preamble such as "duck hunting being necessary to the recreation of a fun state."

    St. George Tucker, the first major commentator on the Bill of Rights (New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 296-97 (1964)), explained the Second Amendment as follows: "The right of self defense is the first law of nature .... Wherever ... the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction." 1 Tucker, Blackstone's Commentaries (Appendix) 300 (1803).

    In sum, the Framers clearly intended to protect the individual right to keep and bear arms."

    I'm sure Hillary will find someone who can construct just the opposite of what the framers meant, from what they wrote.
     
    Sgt Nambu likes this.
  14. RicInOR

    RicInOR Washington County Bronze Supporter Bronze Supporter

    Messages:
    3,906
    Likes Received:
    4,717
    Stomper likes this.