Washington, D.C. (C) Nick Leghorn

Those of you who live in eastern seabord states are probably very aware of the practice those states use requiring concealed carry license applicants to show a “good reason” why they need to carry a gun. That requirement has enabled law enforcement agencies to grant or deny carry licenses on a whim, often denying them to all except the rich and famous. Such a provision was enacted as part of Washington D.C.’s new court mandated concealed carry licensing law, but now a federal judge has ruled that the practice of requiring a “good reason” is unconstitutional and issued an injunction against that part of the law . . .

From the Firearms Policy Coalition:

Below are relevant excerpts from the decision that explain the ultimate result:

1. Likelihood of success on the merits

The District of Columbia’s arbitrary “good reason”/”proper reason” requirement, however, goes far beyond establishing such reasonable restrictions. Rather, for all intents and purposes, this requirement makes it impossible for the overwhelming majority of law-abiding citizens to obtain licenses to carry handguns in public for self-defense, thereby depriving them of their Second Amendment right to bear arms. Accordingly, at this point in the litigation and based on the current record, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs have shown that they are likely to succeed on the merits of their claim that the District of Columbia’s “good reason”/”proper reason” requirement runs afoul of the Second Amendment.

2. Irreparable harm

This Court agrees with the Seventh Circuit’s reasoning in Ezell [v. City of Chicago] and finds that Plaintiffs have established that they are likely to succeed on the merits of their claim that the District of Columbia’s “good reason”/”proper reason” requirement was unconstitutional when enacted and continues to violate their Second Amendment right to bear arms for the purpose of self-defense every day that the District of Columbia continues to enforce it. Thus, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs have established that they will suffer irreparable harm if the Court does not grant their motion for a preliminary injunction.

3. Balance of the equities

As noted, Plaintiffs seek a very limited injunction. That is, they seek an injunction that only affects Defendants’ ability to enforce the District of Columbia’s “good reason”/”proper reason” requirement. They are not, as Defendants argue, seeking to prevent Defendants from enforcing the other provisions of the licensing mechanism nor do they seek to prevent Defendants from enacting and enforcing appropriate time, place and manner restrictions. Under these circumstances, the Court finds that the balance of the equities weighs in favor of granting Plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction.

4. The public interest

For the same reasons that the Court found that the balance of equities weighs in favor of Plaintiffs, the Court also finds that the public interest weighs in favor of Plaintiffs.

In its conclusion, the Court:

ORDERS that Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction is GRANTED; and the Court further

ORDERS that Defendants, their officers, agents, servants, employees, and all persons in active concert or participation with them who receive actual notice of the injunction are enjoined from enforcing the requirement of D.C. Code § 22-4506(a) that handgun carry license applicants have a “good reason to fear injury to his or her person or property or has any other proper reason for carrying a pistol,” including, but not limited to, the manner in which that requirement is defined by D.C. Code § 7-2509.11 and 24 D.C.M.R. §§ 2333.1, 2333.2, 2333.3, 2333.4, and 2334.1, against Plaintiffs Brian Wrenn, Joshua Akery, Tyler Whidby, and other members of Plaintiff Second Amendment Foundation, Inc.; and the Court further

ORDERS that Defendants, their officers, agents, servants, employees, and all persons inactive concert or participation with them who receive actual notice of the injunction, are enjoined from denying handgun carry licenses to applicants who meet the requirements of D.C. Code 22-4506(a) and all other current requirements for the possession and carrying of handguns under District of Columbia law; and the Court further

ORDERS that, pursuant to Rule 65(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiffs shall post security in the amount of $1,000.00; and the Court further

ORDERS that counsel shall appear for a conference with the Court on Tuesday, July 7, 2015, at 11:00 a.m. to discuss an expedited schedule for the resolution of this case.

The full decision and order can be read here.

The kudos go to the Second Amendment Foundation, but the job isn’t done yet. The judgement is only permanent if they win their case, which is still a long and arduous battle. But in the meantime, get your carry license while you can!

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

84 COMMENTS

  1. Well, DC is now shall issue! Is there enough of an imbalance of justice in the district courts yet for the SC to finally kill un-Constitutional may issue laws?

    • In order to be of any real use to the citizens of D.C., the ban on carry in the metro must be struck down.

      • There is no ban. WMATA merely delegates to the local laws. The problem is if one misses their stop in VA and finds themselves on their way to MD or DC – then you’re in trouble. Same thing for that one mile so stretch of highway in VA that passes through DC turf. I’m too lazy to actually find it on the WMATA site, but I guess the Examiner’ll do:

        “In doing so WMATA has publicly acknowledged that gun carry on the DC Metro system is not banned, but merely governed by the laws of each of the three member jurisdictions: Virginia, Maryland, and the District of Columbia.”

        http://www.examiner.com/article/dc-metro-concedes-gun-carry-often-legal-on-trains-buses

    • I have to give it up to the 2AF and Alan Gura. From a legal strategy standpoint, going after DC’s no carry laws was really ballsy. Given that the Supremes have been punting all the carry cases that have shown up in front of them, getting DC turned into our favor was huge. Do you know why? Can you guess which legal body has to hear appeals of DC rulings? You gessed it; the Supreme Court. If the antis lose on their “good cause” requirements, and they want to appeal, the Supremes will have to hear it. However, given the Supremes’ previous reluctance to take any “good cause” case before, I assume that one of the Heller 5 can’t be counted on for sure. Hopefully, this won’t come back to bite us in the rear later on down the line.

      • Actually, there is a D.C. Court of Appeals who will hear this appeal, and it recently shifted towards a majority of Democratic nominations.

        • Yes, the Dems recently packed the courts to help eliminate that possible check on increasing administrative authority. Even if “good cause” is ruled unconstitutional in this case, the decision is almost certain to be reversed on appeal.

        • If this case is appealed to the District Court, could it then go to the Supreme Court?

        • Yes, next step for DC would be to appeal Wrenn, just as they did with Palmer.
          Yes, Tony, after that its petition for cert to SCOTUS.

          Note that Judge Scullin’s decison on the PI referred to the outstanding opinion in Peruta v San Diego, in the 9ths 3 judge enbanc. That is being re-heard by the 11 judge en banc, as requested by the sua sponte request, and orals will be on June 16, in San Fran.

          Should be very interesting, given its argued in combination- Paul Clements, former Solicitor General for Peruta (funded by NRA) and Alan Gura for Richards v Yolo County Sheriff Prieto, (funded by SAF). Also available on youtube, live.

          Lots more legal discussion at Calguns.net

          PS: tip- great new book out called “OverRuled, The Long Battle for Control of the Supreme Court” on Amazon kindle for $15. Short, layman level readable, excellent history and context for the current philosophical debate over judicial restraint, vs judicial activism. Well worth the effort for this legal noob, and will set you up for understanding the show, in the ring-side seat to history that I suspect Peruta/Richards will become for 2A rights as it goes to SCOTUS.

  2. Good news so far, indeed!

    In Massachusetts it’s been local police chiefs who decide whether someone will get a CCW, and if he or she didn’t like the cut of your jib, you weren’t gonna get one. But they’d hand them out to their pals and the local powers and principalities and celebs.

    I moved to Vermont two decades ago and we don’t have any of that nonsense here. Our two remaining issues are a weakly Castle Doctrine and suppressors are not legal here. Yet. Meanwhile we have the usual suspects, not from around here, and usually from places like NY, MA, CT, and NJ originally, periodically attempting their usual anti- stuff in various political and media settings.

    So it’s a never-ending battle, even here.

  3. Wasn’t there supposed to be some sort of reciprocity, in the original ruling, as well?

    • Not reciprocity, but the ability of non DC residents to acquire a DC permit, so no residency requirements

  4. And how will this latest injunction be ignored, I wonder? Turn the whole District into a Gun Free Zone piecemeal with their list of all public locations?

    • that is exactly what they will do; follow the Chicago model. 23 legally restricted defined areas, including public transit, parks, playgrounds, anyplace that is posted, ANYTHING owned by ANY university, and much much much MORE!

      • I feel bad for Illinois residents…and that’s saying something since I live in New York State…Illinois really just needed a CCW law in place since they were the last in the union and the 7th circuit was breathing down their neck telling them to fix it in X amount of time or the state would be constitutional carry by federal court order. I can’t imagine trying to keep track of all the places I COULDN’T carry in Chicago….not that I would live in Chicago or any city…I’m sure in time they will cut away some of the insane restrictions. Non-residents can carry in there cars while in Illinois though.

  5. Yay, DC!

    Can’t wait for Emily Miller’s article on the flood of the un-washed (yet felony-free) citizens applying for their permits.

    Pearls will be clutched as they have never been clutched before…

    The horrified shrieks of dismay from the antis will be music to our ears…

    Sweet. 🙂

  6. I wonder when they will rule on Maryland. It’s impossible to get a general carry permit in Maryland. Even an ex-prosecutor sued to get one when he was denied and lost the case.

      • No. the DC judge is a retired (called senior judge) from New York. And the 4th Circuit (which covers Maryland) has already upheld the Maryland scheme in a decision that is so partisan and unspported by evidence that this judge calls it out in a footnote in this decision as “unpersuasive.” However, the Supreme Court has declined review in all three of the cases challenging “may issue” in the 2d, 3d, and 4th Circuits. This (and Peruta at some point) are the last two cases that can conceivably raise the issue. But remember also that this trial court decision will likely be appealed to the D.C. Circuit.

        • SCOTUS likes to wait for the issue to either sort its self out in the various circuits of the US Court of Appeals or for one issue to form one giant circuit split to the point where the uniformity is so out of whack they have to rule on it. Luckily I think we are getting closer and closer….I’m still shocked the 9th Circuit ruled favorably in Peruta, they are a very liberal circuit so there definitely is hope. This will likely hit the DC Circuit and regardless of the decision it will add fuel to the fire under SCOTUS’s rear ends to hear a ccw law related case that is asking for shall issue. Of course they move at a snails pace but its better than having all these issues end at a state court.

        • Woah random but I just realized that the Judge is from my County and was/is a federal Judge around here. Family friend used to be a US Attorney for the Northern District of NY so he’s likely worked with him before. Very cool. Judge Scullin seams like a Judge who actually remembers the constitution and wants to hold DC to it!

  8. So thankful that folks like Gura end-runned the NRA, since it was starting to seem like they never wanted to settle these questions. 2A-F, love ya!

    • The NRA has been damned for their lack of support of 2nd Amendment cases, and the SAF has been praised, but if only one more Justice had not been convinced, then it would have been the other way around, and gun prohibitions and even confiscations would be the rule of the day.

      Still, this is an excellent decision, and one that hopefully will stand on appeal, setting up a clear circuit split before the composition of the Supreme Court can change for the worse.

  9. This is the same judge who struck down the first D.C. handgun law, Senior Judge Scullin, in a decision in which he heavily relied on Peruta v. Gore for the proposition that the only cause needed to carry a handgun for self defense is the desire to do so. Friggin’ brilliant. He recognized what we have been saying all along–the right is given to all, not sjust the special few. And he jabbed at the 4th Circuit ruling affirming Maryland’s “may issue” law despite the complete absence of an actual evidence to support the alleged “public safety” rationale argued by the State.

    • Hmm, gonna be kinda tricky for the 9th en banc to dismantle Peruta when it’s already guiding thorough binding precedent on the other side of the US. Kudos.

      • Umm, that would be a big NO! This is a trial court decision, and it is therefore not binding anywhere but in that court. It is NOT binding on any Court of Appeal anywhere. Further, it is subject to being appealed (to the DC Circuit), so who knows what will happen to it down the road.

        • Unfortunately I think you are right :/ I’m praying for the DC Circuit to cite the 9th Circuit’s view in Peruta and possibly expand on it so we can get more circuits striking down these insane carry laws. Praying for the 2nd Circuit to be forced to hear this (I live in NY State) but they are about as liberal as it gets, they make the 9th Circuit look conservative when it comes to guns….Sotomayor actually ruled that the 2nd Amendment didn’t apply in the second circuit AFTER DC v. Heller and still got appointed to SCOTUS…*sigh*.

        • The decision in Peruta has been decertified and may no longer be cited after a grant of en banc review. The review is on the record, with no further briefing, and oral arguments are set for mid-June. Decision to issue “sometime” thereafter (there is no time limit for issuance of decisions). A reversal by the en banc panel will be appealed, but the issue is that there will then be unanimity in the decisions of the circuits with “may issue” laws (2d. 3d. 4th and 9th) that is a factor that will weigh against a grant of review. Even if, as Judge Scullin says, the 2d, 3d and 4th got it wrong.

        • Mark N: “. . . there will then be unanimity in the decisions of the circuits with “may issue” laws (2d. 3d. 4th and 9th) that is a factor that will weigh against a grant of review.” Is this true? I thought that the 7’th ruled against IL in favor of Shall-Issue. Ignoring DC for the moment, wouldn’t that be a Circuit Split with 4:1 against us?

          DC District should go in our favor; but probably would go against us in DC Circuit. That would make for 5:1 against us. The up-side is that there would be no reasonable expectation that any other Circuit would remain to eventually weigh-in. Then, SCOTUS would be expected to resolve the Circuit Split with bad odds against us.

          What I’m really worried about is that the 9th en banc and the DC Circuit might just sit on their decision indefinitely. Why should they ever give a ruling? They will have had their way in their Circuits and won’t be able to improve the situation for the foreseeable future.

          Would SCOTUS then force the issue? Or, would SCOTUS also just sit on it? In the absence of a somehow perfectly-clean case, why should SCOTUS stick its neck out?

          I thought the Boston case with the woman who carried a stun gun might be perfect. SCOTUS could over-rule and declare a stun gun to be an “arm” protected by 2A. And, it could order MA to provide a procedure for Shall-Issue to her to carry her stun gun. That wouldn’t touch firearms explicitly but would leave the handwriting on the wall. If one “arm” is Shall-Issue then other “arms” should also be Shall-Issue.

  12. Good step in the right direction. An incremental step toward restoring full constitutional rights for citizens as enumerated in the Second Amendment.

    • A single man with a pick axe can level Mount Everest given enough time, patience and perseverance.

  13. Anyone familiar with the non-resident application and firearm registration process? Law seems to state it is the same as the resident process as long as the applicant has a CC permit from any(?) state or subdivision of the US, but it also requires the firearm be registered in DC.

    • Correct. If they grant you a permit as an out of state resident they will register one gun for the price of the permit. Extras are $13 each. There is a lot more to it but check DC MPD website for all the requirements.

  14. Interesting thought I Just had: assuming OC is illegal in dc, this ruling makes sense to me. If oc were legal, then this ruling wouldn’t have happened, since you could legally carry w/out a cc permit.

    Since a majority of gun owners want to concealed carry, vs open carry, the antis have now opened a more enticing door for more owners.

    In other words, courts did their job, gun activists did their job, and now we get to do our jobs, and carry more guns.

  15. “Plaintiffs’” now need to go back and demand that ALL DC firearms regulations be overturned based on the ongoing pattern of illegal behavior by the defendants.

  16. Might be good for the few hold out states, or not, as the SCOTUS has said concealed carry is a privilege and open carry is the right to bear. Either way DC law has a TON of prohibited places, including most restaurants and DC Metro.

    • The Supreme Court has said no such thing. In fact, it has not even considered the issue. All it has said, in Scalia’s discussion, is that concealed carry bans have been upheld in various State Supreme Courts, but in each case open carry was still an option. Technically speaking, as several Circuit Courts have noted, the Heller decision concerns only “keep” and not “bear”, as that was all that was at issue. There is no binding Supreme Court precedent recognizing a right to bear outside the home (even though any nonpartisan observer would agree that this was the intent of its discussion).

      • Every case cited by the U.S. Supreme Court held that while the state can regulate
        concealed carry, it could not similarly regulate unconcealed carry. See e.g. Nunn
        v. State, 1 Ga. 243, 251 (Ga. 1846)( holding that the state could “suppress the
        practice of carrying certain weapons secretly”, but “that so much of it, as contains
        a prohibition against bearing arms openly, is in conflict with the Constitution, and
        void . . . ); and State v. Reid, 1 Ala. 612, 619(1840)(holding, “we incline to the
        opinion that the Legislature cannot inhibit the citizen from bearing arms openly,
        because it authorizes him to bear them for the purposes of defending himself and
        the State, and it is only when carried openly, that they can be efficiently used for
        defence”).

        I doubt SCOTUS will turn centuries of legal tradition on its head if/when they
        address carry explicitly.

        • Try again. NOT ONE of these cases was decided under the US Constitution. NOT ONE constitutes, directly or by adoption, a decision of the United States Supreme Court. NOT ONE of these cases would be “overturned” no matter what the Supreme Court decides under the Second Amendment. Nor did the Supreme Court cite any one of these cases for the proposition that there is a right to bear arms outside the home; rather they were cited for determining the permissible scope of restrictions on the right to keep arms. In reaching its ultimate conclusion, it cited these cases as standing for the proposition that some limitations on the right to keep and bear arms (in those cases a ban on concealed carry) are permissible.
          But other than the exact factual scenario presented in Heller, the Court has not specified the scope of the Second Amendment, leaving that to future cases. Heller involved a ban on the keeping of an operational firearm within the home. The ordinance required that a gun be kept unloaded and locked, with ammunition in a separate room of the home, also under lock and key. The conclusion of the Supreme Court–its actual holding–says no more than there is a Second Amendment right to keep a loaded firearm in the home for the purpose of self defense.

        • SCOTUS needs to look at Maryland. You can’t CC or OC there as both require a license which they will not issue.

        • Danny, maybe OC is the next logical avenue of attack. SCOTUS could strike down a State’s scheme denying any permit to either OC or CC. SCOTUS could conclude that that is unconstitutional under the earlier presidents at the State level.

          The consequences of such a SCOTUS decision would seem to be to momentarily turn that State’s law into a nullity; leaving it Constitutional Carry as was DC for a couple of days. That State would then have to scramble to decide what to do about it.

          SCOTUS would not necessarily have to rule on any particular parameters for Shall-Issue or liberal May-Issue. So, the State could play a cat-and-mouse game with the Judicial branch trying to build the most il-liberal May-Issue regime that would pass Constitutional muster.

          An alternative open to such a State would be to remain silent on OC and play the cat-and-mouse game only for CC. The State’s game might be that the Judicial branch would leave them alone on a very il-liberal May-Issue for CC as long as they don’t regulate OC.

          Thereupon, it would remain for the PotG to call the State’s bluff and start OC’ing to force a more liberal May-Issue law and practice.

    • Wow, that takes the cake for misleadingly incomplete headline. The ruling is essentially that a person, upon becoming a “prohibited person” can decide who to sell or transfer their guns to, rather than being forced to turn them over to the government, as long as the transfer wouldn’t leave the now prohibited person effectively in control of the firearms.

      So, yes, the Supreme Court ruled that a “felon may sell or transfer firearms”, but not just generally speaking.

      • I saw a case not too long ago in Ohio where the judge allowed the defendant to transfer/sell his firearms post conviction as part of the court record. But, the defendant was a police officer and the charge was domestic in nature. I know all of the parties involved (officer, judge, prosecutor, etc) but not the ex-wife. I lamented that it ought to be an option for all who are convicted and not just former police officers and the like. It will be nice to print this decision out and give a copy to them. 🙂

        • But LEO are “the law”, and may interpret said law as they feel is correct, no?

    • I read about this case elsewhere, and it made me laugh. First of all, the Border Patrol Agent isn’t very smart. But second of all, he had 19 firearms worth $3,500, and the collection has some valuable antiques? LOL. That’s an average of $184 per gun.

  18. Does anybody think this will influence the en-banc review of Peruta v. San Diego and Richards v. Yolo County Sheriff Ed Prieto in CA? I believe the issues are almost identical.

    • There is no reason that it should. It is only a trial court decision, after all, and one that relies heavily upon the reasoning of the depublished Peruta decision that is under review. If it were an appeals court decision it would be a different matter.

      • +1, thank you Mark N.

        Jackson v San Fransciso, now relisted for the fourth time, for May 14th conference, “may” have something to say to the 9th, at least in terms of intermediate scrutiny and the circular argument of public safety because fear “OMG guns..*

        http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/petitions-were-watching/

        Hopefully before June 16th orals for Peruta and Richards, but most likely by end of June.

        *see also Easterbrooks decision in Friedman v Highland Park, in CA7

        • arghh…too slow again for this wonky wordpress edit comment function…

          Make that lthe May 21 conference, results to be announced May 26th.
          FYI- scotusblog is live blogging results, on those days and the insider questions and comments are very helpful.

          There should be a red-bordered box just under the main header/subtopics at top of page, where you can click to follow along. Tons of really useful articles about the cases by experienced observers and the star reporter, Lyle Denniston, too.

        • I noticed in your link a case Maricopa v. Lopez-V a bail case. “. . . barring categorical denials of bail such as Arizona’s Proposition 100 and calling into question categorical bans on bail in non-capital cases . . . ”

          While this has nothing directly to do with Right-to-Carry, I wonder if there is a basis for an argument here.

          When granting and setting the amount of bail the court (State) must make a decision as to risk to the public safety vs. the right of a citizen to be free of unreasonable bail requirements. (Either you take public safety into account; or, alternatively, you say that public safety matters not at all – only the court’s interest in guaranteeing the accused’s future appearance. I’ll take it either way.)

          Apparently, an accused’s entitlement to the Right-of-Reasonable-Bail is subject to a due-process evaluation of his individual merits; i.e., he can’t be denied simply because he is neither an influential personage nor an armored-car driver. If that’s the case, they why could a gun carrier’s Right-to-Carry be summarily be dismissed on his individual merits?

          Arguably, a gun carrier might have a life worth defending. She might have money or property worth stealing. If so, she ought to meet a “needs” test. On the other side of the ledger, she might be well established in the community and well known for her prudent and sober character. She might be prepared to demonstrate his skill as a markswoman and to have a working understanding of the rules-of-engagement for the lawful use of deadly force.

          I am NOT, here, proposing any withdrawal from a blanket position of Shall-Issue without training. Instead, I wonder if the Won’t-Issue States might be vulnerable to an argument that would loosen their hold from Won’t- to May-; i.e., that the burden should be placed on the State to prove that a gun carrier represents a greater risk to society than an indicted rapist.

          I don’t see how – ultimately – the courts could consider Donald Trump’s need to defend himself to be qualitatively greater than that of Mrs. Smith to defend her’s. What is the value of Mrs. Smith’s life to her husband in caring for their minor children until the last reaches the age of majority? That Mrs. Smith has but $10 in her purse is sufficient to invite the attack of a drug addict.

          • I think you’re looking at the wrong side of the equation. What is the demonstrated, articulable risk to public safety created by a law-abiding person lawfully carrying a firearm, either openly or concealed?

            • Chip, I don’t think I’m looking at the wrong side of the argument. I think it’s a legitimate challenge to the Won’t Issue States.

              The Won’t Issue States seem to have 2 arguments:
              – a poor man who is not an armored-car driver has LESS need, not enough need, to defend himself; or,
              – every individual on the street with a gun adds at least a minuscule risk to the possibility of an AD or an unjustified discharge to the detriment of public safety.

              I believe that you and I and everyone else on TTAG believes that the People presumably were aware of these considerations in the 1790s and took them into account. They decided that the risk of a tyronious government far outweighed these 2 considerations. Our problem today is persuading the 2, 3, 4, 9 and DC Circuits to recognize that this policy consideration has been put beyond the reach of the Federal and States’ legislatures.

              If the 10 Won’t-Issue jurisdictions continue to maintain that either:
              – a poor man’s need for self-defense is – in principle – an acceptable consideration; or,
              – a minuscule risk of an AD or unjustified discharge is an acceptable consideration
              then we need to get it’s respective Circuit to overturn that consideration. In fact, we need to get its Circuit to overturn both considerations.

              I don’t think that any US Circuit would want to write an opinion that a poor man’s life is not worthy of self-defense (absent the argument that he is guarding a rich man’s money).

              Now, we are left with the minuscule risk of an AD or unjustified discharge. It’s nonsense to argue that there is NO risk – not even a minuscule risk – of an AD/UnJ-D. The pages of TTAG are replete with cases of the nation’s Finest – the Only-Ones – who have ADs/UnJ-Ds. Will we argue that the Only-Ones are uniquely susceptible to ADs/UnJ-Ds? Those of us who are merely humble subjects of the All-Mighty State are immune to ADs/UnJ-Ds? I think it’s foolish to make such an argument.

              Instead, we ought to argue that while the risk is not nil, it is miniscule. The history of the 40 Right-to-Carry States is such that mere subjects are careful and prudent. The risks of ADs/UnJ-Ds are fully justified compared to the safety provided to gun carriers and other innocents whose lives and property are occasionally saved by going armed.

              If judges may not deny an enumerated Right-to-Bail from indicted defendants without a particularized showing of unwarranted risk to public safety how can constables deny BC’ed citizens an enumerated Right-to-Carry without a particularized showing of unwarranted risk to public safety?

              We have – here – two enumerated rights: Bail; Bearing-Arms. Assuming the courts have already decided that one right can not be denied without a due-process consideration of particularized risk then it reasonably follows that the other right can not be denied without due-process consideration of particularized risk.

              Recall the guy who recently killed 3 of his neighbors over a parking dispute. If I recall correctly, he seems to have had a temper problem that had been repeatedly manifested. Arguably, a constable might have justifiably denied him a CWP based on his subjective impression; and, a judge could have granted him due-process based upon the evidence brought by the constable.

              Likewise, some States have live-fire tests (MN, SC among others). If the instructor didn’t pass the applicant on the live-fire test a constable would have a basis that could be subject to evaluation by a judge.

              Absent some such due-process evaluation of a particularized risk, how can the State deny an enumerated right based merely on a legislative determination of a minuscule risk?

              More importantly, how can the State deny one enumerated right (Constitutionally) when SCOTUS has determined that another enumerated right can not be so denied without due-process and a particularized showing?

              Bear in mind that the PotG do not need to unanimously (nor by majority) concede a point to the gun-grabbers that will stand in perpetuity. Any humble barrister – such as Alan Gura – could make such a case in any of the Won’t-Issue jurisdictions on behalf of a poster-child client – some Mrs. Smith with a clean record and a respectable ranking in IGPA – to move the question. Such a case would put the shoe on the foot of a Circuit to justify due-process for R-T-Bail but summary denial for R-T-Bare.

  19. Hopefully, everyone who even considered a license in DC rushes to apply now, as quickly as possible. The higher number of licenses issued, I think, the better the chances of a bureaucratic mess should the courts flip-flop. Just my opinion…

    • Unless there is an interim appeal and a request for a stay. I wouldn’t put it past the City to try.

  20. As Emily Miller has pointed out, another big issue in DC is that even if you can get a DC permit, which I guess now you can, it will not apply on Federal property. She pointed out that she cannot walk her dog in DC without crossing onto and off of Federal property and it is not usually posted. Living in VA, I think I might apply for a DC permit, but I would hesitate to walk around DC actually carrying.

    • This was the same issue wrt a gun store. Given the DC laws, a gun store could not exist anywhere within DC because it was too close to a prohibited location. DC finally had to allow an FFL in the police hq.

      • He is an FFL, but he only processes transfers (by appointment only). He sells nothing. There is no gun store in DC.

        • Correct – See my last sentence.

          IIRC, there’s a lawsuit to permit interstate handgun purchases to be regulated like long arms just because of this issue. The whole thing is just nutty….

    • Practically, making DC a checkerboard of red and black squares is a problem – but I don’t think it will last in the long run. Theoretically, making a single square foot of DC Shall-Issue is a huge success.

      I imagine that DC is not as uniform as a checkerboard. I.e., there are probably areas such as Emily’s neighborhood where she can’t walk her dog; however, there are probably other neighborhoods where you can walk – say from your home to the convenience store. Over the years, the most intrepid of DC residents will map out their neighborhoods and see if they can get around to places they need to go without crossing a black square. These will get permits and carry.

      Gradually, these intrepid few will occasionally carry across black squares; but they won’t be detected. The DC Police will gradually become immunized from panic with the prospect of DC citizens carrying in red squares and won’t much care if occasionally a CC’er steps onto a black square. As this happens, more DC citizens will get permits notwithstanding that where they walk regularly they will regularly cross black squares. Eventually, a prevailing rule will arise that if you stay out of Federal buildings and outside the Mall, etc., the DC Police will leave you alone.

      Eventually, some little-old-lady (preferably from a officially-designated minority group) will dump the Dirty-Harry from her purse on the sidewalk in a black square; whereupon a young rookie will arrest her. She will wind up facing a sympathetic judge (from the same minority group) who will have to decide whether to throw-the-book at her or dismiss the case. Proof of the pudding will be that he dismisses the case.

      Because DC is not-a-State, the DC courts and Congress are free to make decisions there without running into any States’ rights issues. E.g., Congress-critters from the 40 Shall-Issue States could make DC Constitutional-Carry – including the Capital building – over the howls of everyone else. Photographs of visitors OC’ing on their way to visit the Capital building would drive the hoplophobes crazy. For this reason, DC is theoretically very important to our cause.

  21. This decision gives me hope in neighboring Maryland. A federal district court struck down Maryland’s “good and substantial reason” requirement, but the 4th Circuit reversed, and the Supremes declined to hear the case.

    With different federal courts coming to different outcomes on this issue, the Supreme Court is eventually going to have to step in and resolve the matter. And I don’t see any distinction in the 2nd Amendment between the right to “keep” or “bear” arms — if the one is a right, then the other must be also.

  22. I still won’t go there or any other anti-gun State.
    The Demoncrats in charge will think up a workaround, you can bet on it.
    The only thing we’re missing here in South Carolina is Open Carry.
    But there is a Bill in the State Legislature for no license conceal carry.
    Suppressors, machine guns, SBR, SBS, you name it we can have it as long the County Sheriff isn’t anti-gun (there are a few) and signs your Form 1 or 4.

  23. “Good Reason” – Well, I think I have the need to defend myself in a dangerous world, in what seems to me to be the best way at hand. (Unless and until they either make the world entirely un-dangerous, or protect me absolutely from it, I think I have this prerogative.)

    If someone wishes to make the argument “You are expendable, in the name of this other goal, here.” they should go ahead and make it: “Better you should die when you might not have, or suffer the passive indignities of your imposed fate without the means, or illusion of being able to do for yourself, than we should have to suffer you possessing such agency in the world as a gun (or a knife, or a stick, or the simple fact that you might act in any way to make the fate you choose for yourself.)”

    “Proper Reason” – Oh, my. What is a proper reason? Says who? This is where appeal to governing, more general laws like the US Constitution comes in. Or principles and philosophies. In the above, “doing for yourself, to make the fat you choose” is to some, improper.

    “Irreparable Harm” – Someone who is involuntarily dead who would (or might) not otherwise be, has suffered “irreparable harm.” We can’t bring people back.

    “Balance of the Equities” – I become bothered when other people think their preferences of how, or whether, to live should be imposed on me, on pain of my maybe getting killed. At a minimum, in individual, idiosyncratic situations, or in general policy for dealing with the world, they get to have things done their way, and I get to live with the consequences. Seems unbalanced.

    “The Public Interest” – The crux. Is someone so smart about how the world works, so ethically pure and morally accurate that their opinion of how things should be is “the public interest?” Who is that? Or maybe, the public interest is the most people – sometimes known collectively as “the public” – doing as much of whatever they like as they can. It’s their interest. Let them do what they want.

    Funny how “The Public” is always somebody else, for which some distinct “we” knows better than they what’s they want, or should, what’s good for them, or we want it to be, and how to get that, or at least a scheme that feels good. That’s a good test, for this kind of foolishness: we/they; what they ought to want (vs say or choose for themselves); what’s to their benefit says us, not them; and a scheme that feels good vs. is known to work. Whenever you see any of that, shenanigans are afoot.

  24. This great news, but just a small step in a long campaign.

    Thank God for Alan Gura.

    Now we’ll have to watch what the appeals court does. Seems to me that DC won’t just let this ride, given mayor Murial Browser’s statement, “you have a mayor who hates guns, if it was up to me, we wouldn’t have any handguns in the District of Columbia. I swear to protect the Constitution and do what the courts say, but I will do it in the most restrictive way possible.”

  25. Constitutional Right, period! What the hell is so difficult to understand, every law in any municipality denying citizens the right to bear arms, the right to defend themselves need to be struck down immediately. Any city or town denying its citizens that right should be sued and made to pay, those in charge enforcing these infringing laws should be arrested. The Constitution does not give the right to a select few to grant those rights to only a select few. That kind of nonsense is blatant in places like D.C., and it has to end.

Comments are closed.