• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Federal judge blocks ‘good reason’ requirement of D.C carry law

MickeyW

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 10, 2015
Messages
14,012
Reaction score
3,439
Location
Southern Oregon
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative

cpgrad08

American
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 19, 2011
Messages
5,656
Reaction score
3,006
Location
Lakewood,WA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian

RetiredUSN

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 13, 2016
Messages
26,526
Reaction score
13,494
Location
Norfolk Virginia area.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Because the right to bear arms includes the right to carry firearms for self-defense both in and outside the home, I find that the District’s ‘good reason’ requirement likely places an unconstitutional burden on this right.”—Judge Richard J. Leon


Federal judge blocks ?good reason? requirement of D.C carry law | Examiner.com


I never understood the reason behind the "good reason" requirement. Oh wait...... Nope! I still don't.

Meanwhile, self worthy politicians in the district are protected better than a Army Division.
 

Crimefree

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 24, 2009
Messages
10,476
Reaction score
2,606
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I never understood the reason behind the "good reason" requirement. Oh wait...... Nope! I still don't.

Meanwhile, self worthy politicians in the district are protected better than a Army Division.

It gives government arbitrary discretion over who can pass the hurdle. Next step is self defence is not good reason along with you don't need a 50BMG for anything
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
259,400
Reaction score
79,372
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
DC should have been force to remove that after San Diego County lost a similar case a few years ago.

the people who passed it should be fined heavily for passing or maintaining a law they knew or should have reason to know, is unconstitutional
 

Skeptic Bob

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 6, 2014
Messages
16,626
Reaction score
19,488
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
It gives government arbitrary discretion over who can pass the hurdle. Next step is self defence is not good reason along with you don't need a 50BMG for anything

Self defense already wasn't enough of a reason. I lived in DC for a while and couldn't get a concealed carry. Here is the wording from the DC Police's concealed carry application page:

Additionally, the Firearms Control Act requires applicants to explain their need for a Concealed Carry Pistol License by demonstrating either a good reason to fear injury to themselves or their property, or any other proper reason. The fact that an applicant lives or works in a high crime area, in and of itself, is not a sufficient reason for the issuance of a Concealed Carry Pistol License. Applicants must demonstrate their basis for requesting a Concealed Carry Permit by submitting a personal statement or supporting documentation or a notarized statement from a third party

Basically you had to prove there was a specific threat.

http://mpdc.dc.gov/page/applying-concealed-carry-pistol-license
 

Spartacus FPV

Better You = Better World
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 19, 2006
Messages
14,870
Reaction score
7,126
Location
Your Echochamber
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Hopefully that can spread to anti-gun Maryland. The SC denying the petition for Woollard v Gallagher was so disappointing.
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
259,400
Reaction score
79,372
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Self defense already wasn't enough of a reason. I lived in DC for a while and couldn't get a concealed carry. Here is the wording from the DC Police's concealed carry application page:



Basically you had to prove there was a specific threat.

http://mpdc.dc.gov/page/applying-concealed-carry-pistol-license

yet the bureaucrat assholes who would deny that application never had any proper need for a firearm either. The number of times a chief of police has needed a firearm is about as common as a mackerel needing a bicycle

someone who applies for a permit and is denied the same and then attacked should have both CIVIL and CRIMINAL recourse against the person who denied the permit. In other words, the person who denied the permit should be seen as a conspirator before the fact and civilly liable for the injuries. we need to be far far more proactive against martinets and make them pay dearly in civil and criminal courts for denying people their rights
 

MickeyW

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 10, 2015
Messages
14,012
Reaction score
3,439
Location
Southern Oregon
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Self defense already wasn't enough of a reason. I lived in DC for a while and couldn't get a concealed carry. Here is the wording from the DC Police's concealed carry application page:



Basically you had to prove there was a specific threat.

http://mpdc.dc.gov/page/applying-concealed-carry-pistol-license

Totally absurd....I'd be moving, but happy I live out West where some common sense still exists.

yet the bureaucrat assholes who would deny that application never had any proper need for a firearm either. The number of times a chief of police has needed a firearm is about as common as a mackerel needing a bicycle

someone who applies for a permit and is denied the same and then attacked should have both CIVIL and CRIMINAL recourse against the person who denied the permit. In other words, the person who denied the permit should be seen as a conspirator before the fact and civilly liable for the injuries. we need to be far far more proactive against martinets and make them pay dearly in civil and criminal courts for denying people their rights

Absolutely!
 

Skeptic Bob

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 6, 2014
Messages
16,626
Reaction score
19,488
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
Totally absurd....I'd be moving, but happy I live out West where some common sense still exists.

Yeah, well, I was stationed there so I didn't have much choice. Or so I thought. Once my lease ran out I moved right next door to Virginia which is a Shall Issue state.
 
Top Bottom