DC defies court
DC was told to let people carry guns. And they will. If you have a good reason.
7 Responses to “DC defies court”
Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.
Uncle Pays the Bills
 |
|
Find Local
|
Categories
- ATF (769)
- Death Match (10)
- Eminent Domain (225)
- In the bag (9)
- Notes to Junior (546)
- Poker (74)
- Recipes (142)
- Shotgun Noob (11)
- The Airing of Grievances (19)
- uncategorized (47,725)
September 18th, 2014 at 10:13 pm
And they’re openly bragging about how it’s just like Maryland, NY, and NJ’s laws.
It will be interesting to see how this goes.
September 18th, 2014 at 10:34 pm
In a just world, this would mean that DC makes a law similar to theirs. The court objects. AND ALL of the states with these laws have to enter the free world.
Hey…I can dream…
September 19th, 2014 at 11:09 am
“[D]efies” is probably the wrong word. That is if we count thumb-hole stocks and bullet buttons as anything other than complying with a (stupid, misguided) law.
Anyone who thought DC wasn’t going to go “shall-issue” in the sense that only the “rich, famous, politically well-connected, or judges” get a permit, [1] please stand up now for public ridicule.
And while there has been a number of challenges to restrictive “probably-not-issue” laws, teh supremes haven’t picked up any of them yet.
[1] (and maybe those few token ordinary people who have survived a particularly gruesome criminal attack and can prove to an appointed panel that they are more statistical likely to be involved in a criminal attack in the future.)
September 19th, 2014 at 4:11 pm
This is pretty much what the law was before. I was curious how they were going to get around proximity issues for fed buildings, schools, etc.
I was in my LGS about a month ago and a guy was buying all his carry gear and spare mags for his PPK. Seemed excited.
September 21st, 2014 at 9:02 pm
They’re copying Maryland ‘May Issue’… Which has already been struck down as unconstitutional. Looks like Alan Gura is going to end up with another big paycheck courtesy of the DC taxpayers. (And i prefer to think of my tax bill as going specifically to that expense)
September 22nd, 2014 at 5:54 pm
DC has reacted EXACTLY as I predicted. . . and desperately hoped.
They are too arrogant to try to craft something that WON’T infuriate the court, because they were ALREADY TOLD that self defence outside the home is a civil right, and since there was NO legal way for a law abiding citizen to carry arms to do so, they had to craft a law to fix that.
By adopting a strict May Issue law, they just set themselves up to be the reason those laws die, along with the entire legal theory of May Issue.
They could have crafted a strict May Issue law, with an open carry rule so restrictive as to “prohibited places” as to make it functionally worthless for self defence, but which MIGHT have passed muster, especially on an en banc review.
What they did was a blatant slap at the entire concept of judicial review — it’s a slap in the face of the authority of even the very judges they need to agree with them! This is like needing a liberal judge to buy your arguments in a highly technicall case, getting a liberal judge, and then making your opening statement one of open racial slurs directed against that same judge, while procliming he doesn’t have the authority or intelligence to try the matter!
September 22nd, 2014 at 6:45 pm
>They are too arrogant to try to craft something that WON’T infuriate the court, because they were ALREADY TOLD that self defence outside the home is a civil right,
U.S. District Court Judge Frederick J. Scullin Jr. (who sat on this case so long that there was a motion filed to force him to issue a verdict) was himself appointed to the position on a temporary basis by Chief Justice Roberts.
I’ve speculated before that perhaps sitting on the case was deliberate, as the supremes have failed so far to grant cert to any of a number of challenges in “may issue” (a/k/a “probably nope issue”.) (e.g. Woollard v. Gallagher, etc)
Perhaps this is the golden handpicked challenge?