ArizonaShooting.com

"The #1 Resource for Shooters in Arizona!"
It is currently October 21st, 2017, 8:11 am


All times are UTC - 7 hours


Custom Search





Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 4 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: A win for the good guys
New postPosted: July 26th, 2017, 6:52 pm 
Offline
AZS is my home
AZS is my home

Joined: May 28th, 2011, 9:02 am
Posts: 6491
http://reason.com/blog/2017/07/25/in-ma ... -advocates

Quote:
Second Amendment advocates scored a significant legal victory today when the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit blocked Washington, D.C., from enforcing a law that effectively bars most D.C. residents from lawfully carrying handguns in public. "The Second Amendment," the court declared, "erects some absolute barriers that no gun law may breach."

The case was Wrenn v. District of Columbia (consolidated with Grace v. District of Columbia). At issue was a District of Columbia regulation that limited conceal-carry licenses only to those individuals who can demonstrate, to the satisfaction of the chief of police, that they have a "good reason" to carry a handgun in public. According to the District, applicants for a conceal-carry license must show a "special need for self-protection distinguishable from the general community as supported by evidence of specific threats or previous attacks that demonstrate a special danger to the applicant's life." Living or working "in a high crime area shall not by itself establish a good reason."

The D.C. Circuit weighed those regulations against the text and history of the Second Amendment and found the regulations to be constitutionally deficient. "At the Second Amendment's core lies the right of responsible citizens to carry firearms for personal self-defense beyond the home, subject to longstanding restrictions," the D.C. Circuit held. "These traditional limits include, for instance, licensing requirements, but not bans on carrying in urban areas like D.C. or bans on carrying absent a special need for self-defense." The court added: "The Amendment's core at a minimum shields the typically situated citizen's ability to carry common arms generally. The District's good-reason law is necessarily a total ban on exercises of that constitutional right for most D.C. residents. That's enough to sink this law under" District of Columbia v. Heller, the 2008 case that struck down D.C.'s total ban on handguns.

Today's decision by the D.C. Circuit widens an already gaping split among the federal courts on this issue. According to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, "the Second Amendment does not protect in any degree the right to carry concealed firearms in public." By contrast, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit says that "one doesn't need to be a historian to realize that a right to keep and bear arms in the eighteenth century could not rationally have been limited to the home."

In Heller, the U.S. Supreme Court did not rule definitively on the scope of the Second Amendment outside the home. In the nine years since that landmark ruling was issued, the Court has declined several ripe opportunities to settle the matter once and for all.

In fact, just last month, the Court refused to review the 9th Circuit's dismissal of the right to carry, prompting Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch, to lambast the Court for its "distressing trend" of refusing to hear any such cases and thereby treating "the Second Amendment as a disfavored right." As Thomas put it, "even if other Members of the Court do not agree that the Second Amendment likely protects a right to public carry, the time has come for the Court to answer this important question definitively."

That definitive answer apparently won't be coming anytime soon. For now, Second Amendment advocates will have to take heart in victories such as today's win at the D.C. Circuit.

With this kind of split, eventually the matter has to go to the Supreme Court. No hurry, though. Let's wait until Trump can appoint a couple more justices.

_________________
Guns don't kill people.
Gun-free zones kill people.


Last edited by milquetoast on September 29th, 2017, 4:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: A win for the good guys
New postPosted: July 26th, 2017, 10:20 pm 
Offline
AZS is my home
AZS is my home
User avatar

Joined: March 26th, 2009, 3:01 pm
Posts: 3822
I'd save the champagne - any time we get a 'win' in the District of Corruption, they appeal for an en banc hearing, and since the communists outnumber the good guys, the full court reverses. It's also a fair bet that SCOTUS isn't likely to take any Second Amendment cases until another originalist justice is appointed.

_________________
“I won't be wronged. I won't be insulted. I won't be laid a-hand on. I don't do these things to other people, and I require the same from them.”
― John Wayne


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: A win for the good guys
New postPosted: July 28th, 2017, 8:05 am 
Offline
NEWBIE! (<10 posts)
NEWBIE! (<10 posts)

Joined: March 8th, 2015, 12:37 pm
Posts: 7
This will hopefully be a game changer. The same criteria is in place in L.A. County, where it is virtually impossible to get a CCW permit without either knowing the right person and having money, having the right occupation and having money, or having been robbed three or four times. You must show need based on your own personal historical evidence (such as: "I've been robbed at gunpoint twice while making nightly deposits after my jewelry store closes"). Saying you 'might' be robbed is not acceptable. Being a transplant from L.A. county, I'll keep my eye on this. Good luck to them.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: A win for the good guys
New postPosted: September 29th, 2017, 4:44 pm 
Offline
AZS is my home
AZS is my home

Joined: May 28th, 2011, 9:02 am
Posts: 6491
HairyEyeball wrote:
I'd save the champagne - any time we get a 'win' in the District of Corruption, they appeal for an en banc hearing, and since the communists outnumber the good guys, the full court reverses. It's also a fair bet that SCOTUS isn't likely to take any Second Amendment cases until another originalist justice is appointed.

Astonishingly, the full court ("en banc") declined to review, essentially upholding the ruling! Now the only place DC has to go is the Supreme Court. As noted above, California has an essentially identical law, but there the 9th Circuit upheld it. That's a split in the circuits, so next stop really is the Supreme Court.
Also as noted, we are in no hurry for the Supreme Court to take this case until Trump gets to replace one of the liberals, like Bader-Ginsburg or Breyer, with a conservative who understands the 2A. (There are conservatives who are not pro gun rights. Bork was one. Krauthammer and O'Reilly are example of conservatives clueless about the 2A.) And we also have to hope that Trump does not go off half-cocked and appoint a lib just to show how independent he is. (Mike Lee would be nice.) "Here, Aunt Ruthie; try these mushrooms. I picked them myself."

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/sep/28/dc-circuit-court-appeals-lets-stand-gun-ruling-che/

_________________
Guns don't kill people.
Gun-free zones kill people.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 4 posts ] 


All times are UTC - 7 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron


Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group