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

[MickeyW]

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

 

[cpgrad08]

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

DC should have been force to remove that after San Diego County lost a similar case a few years ago.

 

[RetiredUSN]

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]

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]

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

 

[MickeyW]

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

Yes indeed.

 

[Skeptic Bob]

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]

Hopefully that can spread to anti-gun Maryland. The SC denying the petition for Woollard v Gallagher was so disappointing.

 

[TurtleDude]

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]

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]

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.