DC: Fed Court of Appeals rules public carry of firearms a "core" right

What's going on in Washington, D.C.?

Moderators: Charles L. Cotton, carlson1

User avatar

ScottDLS
Senior Member
Posts: 3954
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2005 1:04 am
Location: DFW Area, TX

Re: DC: Fed Court of Appeals rules public carry of firearms a "core" right

Postby ScottDLS » Thu Oct 05, 2017 3:34 pm

Well. I am standing by to apply for mine soon.
4/13/1996 Completed CHL Class, 4/16/1996 Fingerprints, Affidavits, and Application Mailed, 10/4/1996 Received CHL, renewed 1998, 2002, 2006, 2011, 2016...). "ATF... Uhhh...heh...heh....Alcohol, tobacco, and GUNS!! Cool!!!!"


Soccerdad1995
Senior Member
Posts: 2645
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 8:03 pm

Re: DC: Fed Court of Appeals rules public carry of firearms a "core" right

Postby Soccerdad1995 » Thu Oct 05, 2017 3:47 pm

srothstein wrote:
Soccerdad1995 wrote:Here's what I don't understand. Hopefully one of our resident lawyers can edumicate me a bit.

A lower court rules that parts of President Trump's travel ban are unconstitutional. So those parts get put on hold until the case is resolved, 6+ months later.

A lower court rules that parts of DC gun restrictions are unconstitutional. Yet those parts stay in force pending the eventual resolution of the case.

Setting aside who is right and who is wrong, in both cases we have a court deciding that the government is acting in an unconstitutional manner. And in both cases, that allegedly unconstitutional behavior is causing irreparable harm to the people. So why do we allow that harm to continue, pending final resolution, in one case and not in the other?


This is my understanding of how it works, with the standard disclaimer that IANAL.

In any case where the court is asked for temporary restraining order, the court looks at two things. The first is whether or not the petitioner has a reasonable chance of winning the case. If not, no order. Then they ask which causes the greater potential harm - allowing the act or allowing the order. The TRO is granted if the harm is greater when the act is allowed than when it is stopped.

So, in the case of the immigration ban, the court decided that there was a good chance that Trump's order was illegal and that there was more harm to society by allowing it to take effect. In the case of the guns, they decided there was a good chance of winning, but that the harm to citizens was minimal if the law stayed in effect instead of being overturned immediately.


Thanks. That makes sense in general terms.

But I can not fathom how any reasonable person could think that denial of a fundamental human right causes "minimal" harm. The right to own the means for self defense is key to a person's very survival. It is a necessary tool to protect our inalienable right to life, and also to liberty. To me, the right of foreign citizens to visit the U.S. certainly pales in comparison. I would place the importance of the RKBA above the importance of free speech, free exercise of religion, and the right to vote. Others may disagree. But saying that there is more harm done by not letting you go on vacation or visit relatives in the US than there is by forcing you to be a defenseless victim? That defies logic, IMHO.
Ding dong, the witch is dead

User avatar

Pawpaw
Senior Member
Posts: 5492
Joined: Sat Jun 19, 2010 11:16 am
Location: Hunt County

Re: DC: Fed Court of Appeals rules public carry of firearms a "core" right

Postby Pawpaw » Thu Oct 05, 2017 3:58 pm

ELB wrote:SCOTUS is not getting this one: DC won't take concealed carry fight to Supreme Court

The argument against taking the case to the Supreme Court is based on concerns by gun-control advocates that an unfavorable ruling by the nation’s highest court could nullify conceal-carry restrictions in states across the country, including Maryland.

So, they admit it's not a matter of right or wrong, it's a political issue.
Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence. - John Adams

NRA Benefactor Life Member

User avatar

KLB
Senior Member
Posts: 429
Joined: Mon Jan 11, 2016 10:57 am
Location: San Antonio

Re: DC: Fed Court of Appeals rules public carry of firearms a "core" right

Postby KLB » Thu Oct 05, 2017 4:02 pm

Pawpaw wrote:So, they admit it's not a matter of right or wrong, it's a political issue.

Politics over right and wrong? No offense, but your naivete is showing. They're not out to do good. They're out to win. They've had a setback, not a permanent defeat.

User avatar

TexasJohnBoy
Senior Member
Posts: 1759
Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2015 4:21 pm
Location: North Texas

Re: DC: Fed Court of Appeals rules public carry of firearms a "core" right

Postby TexasJohnBoy » Thu Oct 05, 2017 4:41 pm

KLB wrote:
Pawpaw wrote:So, they admit it's not a matter of right or wrong, it's a political issue.

Politics over right and wrong? No offense, but your naivete is showing. They're not out to do good. They're out to win. They've had a setback, not a permanent defeat.

Isn't there another similar case floating out in one of the other circuits right now?
TSRA Member since 5/30/15; NRA Member since 10/31/14

User avatar

Pawpaw
Senior Member
Posts: 5492
Joined: Sat Jun 19, 2010 11:16 am
Location: Hunt County

Re: DC: Fed Court of Appeals rules public carry of firearms a "core" right

Postby Pawpaw » Thu Oct 05, 2017 5:04 pm

KLB wrote:
Pawpaw wrote:So, they admit it's not a matter of right or wrong, it's a political issue.

Politics over right and wrong? No offense, but your naivete is showing. They're not out to do good. They're out to win. They've had a setback, not a permanent defeat.

I'm not the least bit naive. The only thing new here is their admitting it.
Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence. - John Adams

NRA Benefactor Life Member


Soccerdad1995
Senior Member
Posts: 2645
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 8:03 pm

Re: DC: Fed Court of Appeals rules public carry of firearms a "core" right

Postby Soccerdad1995 » Thu Oct 05, 2017 5:07 pm

So if DC is not planning to appeal the decision then what is the basis for a stay? Or am I mistaken and DC needs to start issuing permits today without requiring one to show "cause"?
Ding dong, the witch is dead


CZp10
Banned
Posts: 86
Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2017 9:39 am
Location: DFW

Re: DC: Fed Court of Appeals rules public carry of firearms a "core" right

Postby CZp10 » Thu Oct 05, 2017 5:38 pm

ELB wrote:SCOTUS is not getting this one: DC won't take concealed carry fight to Supreme Court

Interesting. So they are scared that they would lose, so they just give up on the “good reason” for DC. I wonder if all the other states that have similar restrictions will get challenged now?

User avatar

anygunanywhere
Senior Member
Posts: 6631
Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2005 9:16 am
Location: La Grange, Texas

Re: DC: Fed Court of Appeals rules public carry of firearms a "core" right

Postby anygunanywhere » Thu Oct 05, 2017 5:45 pm

CZp10 wrote:
ELB wrote:SCOTUS is not getting this one: DC won't take concealed carry fight to Supreme Court

Interesting. So they are scared that they would lose, so they just give up on the “good reason” for DC. I wonder if all the other states that have similar restrictions will get challenged now?


I do believe that Kommiefornia has the same requirement. I seemto recall the requirement when I tried to get a permit in Contra Costa County.
1911s should be carried openly as God and John Moses Browning (PBUH) intended them to be.
III%


chasfm11
Senior Member
Posts: 3146
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 4:01 pm
Location: Northern DFW

Re: DC: Fed Court of Appeals rules public carry of firearms a "core" right

Postby chasfm11 » Sat Oct 07, 2017 10:52 am

anygunanywhere wrote:
CZp10 wrote:
ELB wrote:SCOTUS is not getting this one: DC won't take concealed carry fight to Supreme Court

Interesting. So they are scared that they would lose, so they just give up on the “good reason” for DC. I wonder if all the other states that have similar restrictions will get challenged now?


I do believe that Kommiefornia has the same requirement. I seem to recall the requirement when I tried to get a permit in Contra Costa County.


Maryland has a "good and substantial" requirement while New York has a "special need for self-protection" Of all the things that are blatantly um-Constitutional, these seem to stand out. I think that both States use those as reasons to deny reciprocity so they go well beyond restricting their own citizens. Maryland is a thorn in my side personally because on a 1,500 mile trip from Texas to Pennsylvania, there is a 12 mile stretch of I-81 in Maryland to requires me to stop and deal with my EDC. I would love to see some case that gets to SCOTUS the extends Heller outside the home. Since Peruta didn't make it, I was hoping that this one would. I do recognize the danger of the wrong case doing substantial harm.
6/23-8/13/10 -51 days to plastic
Dun Spiro Spero

User avatar

ScottDLS
Senior Member
Posts: 3954
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2005 1:04 am
Location: DFW Area, TX

Re: DC: Fed Court of Appeals rules public carry of firearms a "core" right

Postby ScottDLS » Sat Oct 07, 2017 3:17 pm

Soccerdad1995 wrote:So if DC is not planning to appeal the decision then what is the basis for a stay? Or am I mistaken and DC needs to start issuing permits today without requiring one to show "cause"?


I don't think there is a stay any more. I went to the DCPD web site and they basically said they were accepting applications. I am going to be doing some business soon in the DC/VA area, so I am going to apply while I'm up there. There is a list of approved instructors (many in VA) and you can submit your application, then you have 45 days to finish the class. It will be very cool to legally carry a concealed handgun on the DC metro from Virginia to the District and walk around the District. Just need to be careful of Maryland. And, alas I will be working in the Pentagon and the Border Patrol headquarters most of the time, which are prohibited federal buildings, although I can leave in the car in the parking lot of CBP building. Not sure about the Pentagon, but I'll be riding the Metro to both, so I won't get to carry.
4/13/1996 Completed CHL Class, 4/16/1996 Fingerprints, Affidavits, and Application Mailed, 10/4/1996 Received CHL, renewed 1998, 2002, 2006, 2011, 2016...). "ATF... Uhhh...heh...heh....Alcohol, tobacco, and GUNS!! Cool!!!!"

User avatar

CleverNickname
Senior Member
Posts: 597
Joined: Fri Apr 13, 2007 6:36 pm

Re: DC: Fed Court of Appeals rules public carry of firearms a "core" right

Postby CleverNickname » Sun Oct 08, 2017 11:28 am

ScottDLS wrote:It will be very cool to legally carry a concealed handgun on the DC metro from Virginia to the District and walk around the District.


Carry by licensees on any public transportation in DC is prohibited, according to handgunlaw.us

http://www.handgunlaw.us/states/dc.pdf

User avatar

ScottDLS
Senior Member
Posts: 3954
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2005 1:04 am
Location: DFW Area, TX

Re: DC: Fed Court of Appeals rules public carry of firearms a "core" right

Postby ScottDLS » Sun Oct 08, 2017 12:19 pm

CleverNickname wrote:
ScottDLS wrote:It will be very cool to legally carry a concealed handgun on the DC metro from Virginia to the District and walk around the District.


Carry by licensees on any public transportation in DC is prohibited, according to handgunlaw.us

http://www.handgunlaw.us/states/dc.pdf


That is incorrect, if you have a VA CHP you can carry on the Virginia side and presumably if you had a DC permit you could carry there too.
4/13/1996 Completed CHL Class, 4/16/1996 Fingerprints, Affidavits, and Application Mailed, 10/4/1996 Received CHL, renewed 1998, 2002, 2006, 2011, 2016...). "ATF... Uhhh...heh...heh....Alcohol, tobacco, and GUNS!! Cool!!!!"

User avatar

CleverNickname
Senior Member
Posts: 597
Joined: Fri Apr 13, 2007 6:36 pm

Re: DC: Fed Court of Appeals rules public carry of firearms a "core" right

Postby CleverNickname » Sun Oct 08, 2017 2:04 pm

ScottDLS wrote:
CleverNickname wrote:
ScottDLS wrote:It will be very cool to legally carry a concealed handgun on the DC metro from Virginia to the District and walk around the District.


Carry by licensees on any public transportation in DC is prohibited, according to handgunlaw.us

http://www.handgunlaw.us/states/dc.pdf


That is incorrect, if you have a VA CHP you can carry on the Virginia side and presumably if you had a DC permit you could carry there too.


Obviously DC law doesn't apply in Virginia. Notice I said:

CleverNickname wrote:Carry by licensees on any public transportation in DC is prohibited


They have the DC law listed right there in the PDF, so unless you have something that says differently (other than your presumption), I think they're correct.

User avatar

C-dub
Senior Member
Posts: 11678
Joined: Sat May 16, 2009 7:18 pm
Location: DFW

Re: DC: Fed Court of Appeals rules public carry of firearms a "core" right

Postby C-dub » Sun Oct 08, 2017 2:13 pm

ScottDLS wrote:
CleverNickname wrote:
ScottDLS wrote:It will be very cool to legally carry a concealed handgun on the DC metro from Virginia to the District and walk around the District.


Carry by licensees on any public transportation in DC is prohibited, according to handgunlaw.us

http://www.handgunlaw.us/states/dc.pdf


That is incorrect, if you have a VA CHP you can carry on the Virginia side and presumably if you had a DC permit you could carry there too.

I really would like for you to be correct on this and hope you are for your sake if you do carry on the DC metrorail or any other DC public transportation system. However, I am unable to find anything to corroborate your assertion that it is legal. What are you basing your, at this point, opinion that it is legal if one has a concealed permit for DC?

I do note that you say "presumably."
I am not and have never been a LEO. My avatar is in honor of my friend, Dallas Police Sargent Michael Smith, who was murdered along with four other officers in Dallas on 7.7.2016.


Return to “Federal”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest