Washington D.C. Approves Public Carry, and not happy about it

[RamRoddoc]

This is late by several weeks but not a peep from the Main Stream press that citizens are having their rights restored.

The right to "bear" arms is illegal in our nation's capitol thus nullifying the constitutional right. That is until October 22.

In order to simply possess a firearm in your own home (Heller vs. D.C. 2008):

Application$13, Fingerprinting / FBI Background Check $35, Total $48 and In addition to the fees charged by the government, there are private sector fees in this process. Anyone purchasing a firearm outside of the District will need to transfer the firearm through a Federal Firearms Licensee (FFL). At the time of the printing of this guide, the current charge is $125 per firearm. A mandated state approved firearms course not to exceed a fee of $200 was in place but changed to a free state online course in order to exercise the right to "possess". The blind are prohibited from firearm possession it appears as you must declare you are not blind. I can't "see" being blind a lasting prohibition of rights.

Who pays for the salaries, supplies and equipment for LEO/FBI?

And all this when the armed citizen reduces the overall cost of violent crime but some claim an armed citizenry is a liability and threat to public safety. They will always push to make the cost as prohibitive as possible and marginalize the "right" into a for a fee privilege.

D.C. has made unwilling significant strides to restore some semblance of the constitutional rights of the serfs whom serve in that part of our nation. They still fail to comprehend the purpose and intent of the 2A right-both the people and elected officials who swore an oath to support the constitution.

A federal judge issued a 90 day stay in the case of PALMER v DC. A court ruling struck down Washington DC’s complete ban on carry of firearms outside of the home. The stay will be in effect until Oct. 22, 2014.

http://gunssavelives.net/blog/court-cases/breaking-90-day-stay-issued-in-washington-dc-carry-case-carry-no-longer-legal/

D.C. Council votes, reluctantly, to allow public to carry concealed weapons:

The D.C. Council voted Tuesday, 23rd September to grant residents and visitors the ability to carry concealed firearms in public, but the bill would establish a regulatory structure that could make it difficult for gun owners to secure a permit.

Shockingly an educated idiot Democrat is concerned of "public safety", perhaps if she actually researched it, it would even shock her even more so....

Council member Mary M. Cheh (D-Ward 3) said before the vote that she was “deeply disappointed” by the demise of the city’s decades-old ban on carrying guns and said the court ruling, in her view, did “grievous harm to public safety” in the nation’s capital.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dc-politics/dc-council-votes-reluctantly-to-allow-public-to-carry-concealed-weapons/2014/09/23/03e8be1e-4322-11e4-9a15-137aa0153527_story.html

 

[B. Byrd]

Appreciate you keeping us up to date on this kind of news/information.

 

[Patronus]

Yeah don't get happy. They also have a 16 hour IN CLASS training requirement. Know what that means? No reciprocity.

Also, you have to show just cause for carrying and can be denied, making DC a "May issue", not a "Shall issue" jurisdiction.

 

[Patronus]

When I was in DC last time I noticed this and thought it was so appropriate that they actually advertise what they do....in a Freudian slip kinda way.

 

[RamRoddoc]

Yeah don't get happy. They also have a 16 hour IN CLASS training requirement. Know what that means? No reciprocity.

Also, you have to show just cause for carrying and can be denied, making DC a "May issue", not a "Shall issue" jurisdiction.

I don't see that standing. Chicago attempted the same and failed. The judge seems to enforce the intent of the "individual right". States that in effect prohibit or severely restrict lawful carry are just waiting for the right lawsuit. But you will not hear about unless you dig for it as it flies in the face of the liberal agenda.

What they surely will do is attempt to ban everywhere one can carry. In an attempt to nullify the right. It will be interesting to see the judge's take on this for public property and the more likely place one would be required to defend themselves.

Patronus, the irony runs strong in the photo you posted.



http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dc-politics/secret-service-uneasy-over-lifting-ban-on-carrying-guns-dc-council-chairman-says/2014/09/22/d83ce1ae-425a-11e4-9a15-137aa0153527_story.html

On the other side of the issue, the attorney for the litigants who challenged the ban said that the proposed new law is hardly an improvement over what it would replace.

“It plainly fails to comply with the court’s ruling,” Alan Gura said Monday. “The court instructed the city to treat the carrying of handguns as a right rooted in the constitutional interest in self-defense. . . . It’s not much progress to move from a system where *licenses are not available to a system where licenses are only available if the city feels like issuing them. It’s something of a joke.”

Their butt holes tighten....

“We don’t want to be in contempt of court, and we believe that we can accommodate the court with the emergency law and still appeal the decision,” said Tommy Wells (D-Ward 6). “But frankly, I am reluctant for the District to be the vehicle by which the gun laws in America are systematically weakened or eviscerated.”

Wells, who chairs the council’s Judiciary and Public Safety Committee, said he was afraid an appeal could result in a new Supreme Court ruling that could threaten similarly restrictive laws in several states.

He honestly means "Prohibitive" laws.

The counsel's quandary is just how far can the prohibit, restrict, ban and separate the people from their "rights". I would warn the counsel to use great care in attempting a "may issue" approach to restoring the right to bear arms. Chicago attempted the same and got beat down in their attempt to prevent the purpose and intent of the right.

 

[chucklenut]

thanks for the updates!

 

[GAGunguy]

Thanks for the updates, I work in DC and it sounds like I still wont be able to carry unless I apply for a DC permit, which is a may issue, so the net is no carry.

 

[RamRoddoc]

Thanks for the updates, I work in DC and it sounds like I still wont be able to carry unless I apply for a DC permit, which is a may issue, so the net is no carry.

November 20th is the next milestone in restoring stolen citizen's rights in our Nation's Capitol.

 

[RamRoddoc]

2 more weeks......

http://www.myfoxdc.com/story/27444489/will-dc-be-held-in-contempt-for-gun-carry-law

The defense argued that Judge Scullin does not have jurisdiction anymore because the case is on appeal. The judge asked the defense whether he would have jurisdiction if the new law did not comply with his order on the Second Amendment. The city acknowledged that he would. Judge Scullin gave the city two weeks to respond to the contempt motion.

The contempt is more an issue with the people's rights, rather than the court's order. But many of the people tolerate it and the precedent it allows.

The newspaper reported that the judge asked District lawyers if they had statistical evidence showing that restricting carry to people who can demonstrate a special need would enhance public safety.

But D.C. assistant attorney general, Andrew Saindon, said he did not, and argued that the city’s licensing scheme does comply with the court’s orders.

The District has appealed the ruling and said any challenge to the recently passed regulations should be made through a separate lawsuit, but Scullin indicated he retains the right to determine whether the new laws are compliant with his previous ruling.

The District is required to submit additional arguments to the court by Dec. 4 and Gura is required to respond by Dec. 11.

http://www.guns.com/2014/11/21/federal-judge-may-hold-d-c-in-contempt-over-gun-laws/

 

[RamRoddoc]

Dec 1, 2014

http://blogs.rollcall.com/hill-blotter/d-c-concealed-carry-fight-could-provoke-congress-contempt-of-court/

D.C. is appealing Scullin’s ruling in Palmer v. District of Columbia, while moving forward with the legislation officials argue is designed to balance the interest of public safety in the nation’s capital with individual gun rights. They maintain neither ruling stands for unregulated and absolute carrying of firearms.

And when the people accept the tiniest infringement, it sets the precedence and in time will nullify the right. This is in our Nation's Capitol.

If Heller serves as a guide, there may be a flurry of firearm activity in Congress once the court resolves the dispute. A few months after that 2008 ruling, a vulnerable freshman Democrat from Mississippi introduced a bill to loosen and overturn many gun restrictions in D.C. Former Rep. Travis Childers’ legislation was strongly supported by the National Rifle Association and cleared the House by a 266-152 vote, but did not pass the Senate.

Who controls the Senate now.....

Despite what pro-gun lawmakers say, District officials maintain they have a duty to protect members of Congress and other high-profile targets from people carrying concealed weapons.

Ah the true intent..... The people....