'Concealed carry' ruling could help put gun issue on Supreme Court agenda

[Amp]

In a win for gun rights activists, a federal appeals court on Thursday let stand another court’s ruling that it was unconstitutional for Washington, D.C.’s local government to require licensed gun owners to provide a “good reason” for legally carrying a concealed weapon in the nation’s capital city.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/09/29/concealed-carry-ruling-could-help-put-gun-issue-on-supreme-court-agenda.html

[GardoneVT]

It may not be desireable for the SCOTUS to hear a carry case. If D.C. begs for the High Court to save their legal bacon via an appeal,they may just do so at the expense of legal carry for the rest of the country.

Best believe if if the High Court permits any "May Issue" standard for D.C.,every urban zip code nationwide will enact it within a year.

[45dotACP]

No risk no reward...I'm not saying we should push for it now...I'd prefer one more conservative justice on the court.

But once Trump's term is up I have little optimism of another Republican POTUS, and all the SCOTUS nominees that implies. If we're gonna do it, it needs to be done soon before the lefties start trying to fill the seats with judicial activists.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

[HeavyDuty]

It may not be desireable for the SCOTUS to hear a carry case. If D.C. begs for the High Court to save their legal bacon via an appeal,they may just do so at the expense of legal carry for the rest of the country.

Best believe if if the High Court permits any "May Issue" standard for D.C.,every urban zip code nationwide will enact it within a year.

Except in most cases licensure is a state issue, not a municipal one.

[GardoneVT]

Except in most cases licensure is a state issue, not a municipal one.

Unless you live in NYC.

A state of affairs every liberal mayor from San Francisco to the Bronx wishes were so for their cities.

[gtae07]

Except in most cases licensure is a state issue, not a municipal one.
Unless you live in NYC.

A state of affairs every liberal mayor from San Francisco to the Bronx wishes were so for their cities.

Even in states where the licensing requirements are set at the state level, whoever's on the "front end" of the issuing process sometimes decides to make it painful.

In Georgia ("shall-issue" state) the licenses are issued by the county probate court. Issues with the courts in certain counties delaying licenses, charging excess fees, etc. led to the state legislature putting hard limits on the fees and time limits. Even then, some counties drag their feet knowing that the average person doesn't have the resources to fight it. For example, the longest a license is supposed to take to issue is 30 days (calendar, not business). My county, for example, is taking more than three times that to issue new and renewal licenses because they claim there's a "big backlog" that's not improving; my temporary extension even ran out before my new license came in.

I mean, I'm glad that so many people are getting licenses now, and that the demographics of those getting licenses is now more reflective of the local population instead of a subset thereof... but man, I wish "well, I know that's what the law says, but I've been really busy and just haven't had the time to comply with it" would work for me.

[5pins]

DC won’t take concealed carry fight to Supreme Court: Report



WASHINGTON — After days of consulting with the mayor’s office and city council members, D.C. Attorney General Karl Racine has reportedly decided not to fight a ruling that effectively strikes down the District’s strict law that makes it difficult for gun owners to get concealed carry permits.

Sources told WTOP’s broadcast news partner NBC Washington that Racine made the decision not to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court and will formally make an announcement later on Thursday.

https://wtop.com/dc/2017/10/report-dc-wont-take-concealed-carry-fight-supreme-court/

[deputyG23]

DC won’t take concealed carry fight to Supreme Court: Report



https://wtop.com/dc/2017/10/report-dc-wont-take-concealed-carry-fight-supreme-court/



Could this ruling affect MD law, specifically the “good and sufficient reason” clause in their wear and carry permit law?

[joshs]

Could this ruling affect MD law, specifically the “good and sufficient reason” clause in their wear and carry permit law?

No. That's why it's likely that the eight "may issue" states were pressuring D.C. to not appeal the Circuit Court's ruling. Had they appealed and lost "may issue" would have been wiped out across the US.

Most anti-gun jurisdictions remember that it was D.C.'s appeal to SCOTUS that led to the huge growth in 2A litigation.

[Cool Breeze]

I had an hour long conversation with Dave Kopel earlier this year. If you haven't read his articles on 2A issues, you should because they are petty awesome.

Although there is a belief that there has not been a perfect case to actually bring before Scotia, he believes one of the biggest hurdles is that Chief Justice Roberts is not a conservative idealogue, like Scalia, and will not risk the scrutiny to allow it to come before the court. In other words, he doesn't have the guts to do it.

I don't know the truth but it was an interesting view that I never heard of before.



Sent from my Moto G (4) using Tapatalk

[5pins]

I guess you could say DC took one for the team. If you think about it 20 years no one would have thought that DC would a "shall issue" place.

[BillSWPA]

If such a case reaches the Supreme Court, we win 5-4. However, I think it will be difficult to get a case to the Supreme Court in the first place, They have turned down a lot of these cases recently despite a split in the circuits, which is usually a motivating factor in accepting a case.

That said, I agree with concerns about Roberts. In general, the first thing that must be decided when evaluating the constitutionality of a statute is the standard of review. There are three possibilities:

1) Strict scrutiny: applies to fundamental rights. Most statutes don't survive. A statute will only survive if it is narrowly tailored to an important government interest, and is neither underinclusive nor overinclusive in addressing that interest.

2) Intermediate scrutiny: balances rights with government interest. Most commonly used for laws based on gender.

3) Rational basis: applies to most government action. Most statutes survive. If the government has a rational basis for taking the action, it gets to take the action.

As you can see from the above, the case is often won or lost at the stage of determining the standard of review.

The last time a gun case went before the Supreme Court, it was Roberts who announced during oral argument that they did not need to decide the standard of review, because the statute in question didn't survive any of them. It is true that the Supreme Court will typically decide no more than it absolutely has to decide in order to decide a case. However, deciding whether a statute passes muster without deciding the standard of review under which the statute must be reviewed seems fundamentally flawed and is atypical.

Given that the second amendment is part of the bill of rights, I think we all know which standard should apply. I also think Roberts wanted to avoid going that far, because if that standard becomes official, tens of thousands lf laws are going down the toilet.

A case involving the right to carry concealed would necessitate deciding the standard of review, which is one reason I would like to see it happen, and also the biggest obstacle I see to the Supreme Court actually doing it.

[45dotACP]

Pretty sure it's why Illinois knuckled under for CCW as well. Nobody ever figured Chicago would have civvies going armed.

If one of the lefties fucks up the few remaining safe havens of anti-gun they'd probably be forced to commit hara-kiri in front of Debbie Wasserman Schultz with a rusty spoon by their understanding, gentle, social justice minded superiors.

I'm cool with it. We'll just keep winning CCW as shall issue...a state at a time if we have to.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

[deputyG23]

No. That's why it's likely that the eight "may issue" states were pressuring D.C. to not appeal the Circuit Court's ruling. Had they appealed and lost "may issue" would have been wiped out across the US.

Most anti-gun jurisdictions remember that it was D.C.'s appeal to SCOTUS that led to the huge growth in 2A litigation.
I had forgotten that the DC Circuit is separate from the 4th Circuit. Thanks for the clarification. I was hoping it would compel MD to remove the “good and sufficient reason “ clause from its code. My son lives in downtown Baltimore and self defense is not considered good and sufficient reason for issuance of a wear and carry permit.

[BillSWPA]

Of course the politicians in DC would not make this easy. The places which are - maybe, depending on how a statute is interpreted - off limits to those with concealed handgun licenses apparently covers most of the city. How is anyone supposed to know when they are within 1,000 feet of something unless they are thoroughly familiar with every block of the city?

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/oct/10/dc-gun-laws-block-concealed-carry-legal-zones/

[joshs]

Of course the politicians in DC would not make this easy. The places which are - maybe, depending on how a statute is interpreted - off limits to those with concealed handgun licenses apparently covers most of the city. How is anyone supposed to know when they are within 1,000 feet of something unless they are thoroughly familiar with every block of the city?

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/oct/10/dc-gun-laws-block-concealed-carry-legal-zones/

While the provision is terribly written, I think that the law cited by Lott in that article is an enhanced penalty that wouldn't generally apply to licensees. Notably, the penalty available is "twice that otherwise authorized to be imposed." Since a licensee wouldn't otherwise be in violation of the law, there would be no penalty available to double.

That's not to say that there aren't a ridiculous number of prohibited places:


No person holding a license shall carry a pistol in the following locations or under the following circumstances:
(1) A building or office occupied by the District of Columbia, its agencies, or instrumentalities;
(2) The building and grounds, including any adjacent parking lot, of an childcare facility, preschool, public or private elementary or secondary school; or a public or private college or university;
(3) A hospital, or an office where medical or mental health services are the primary services provided;
(4) A penal institution, secure juvenile residential facility, or halfway house;
(5) A polling place while voting is occurring;
(6) A public transportation vehicle, including the Metrorail transit system and its stations;
(7) Any premises, or portion thereof, where alcohol is served, or sold and consumed on the premises, pursuant to a license issued under Title 25; provided, that this prohibition shall not apply to premises operating under a temporary license issued pursuant to § 25-115, a C/R, D/R, C/H, D/H or caterer license issued pursuant to § 25-113, or premises with small-sample tasting permits issued pursuant to § 25-118, unless otherwise prohibited pursuant to subsection (b)(3) of this section;
(8) A stadium or arena;
(9) A gathering or special event open to the public; provided, that no licensee shall be criminally prosecuted unless:
(A) The organizer or the District has provided notice prohibiting the carrying of pistols in advance of the gathering or special event and by posted signage at the gathering or special event; or
(B) The licensee has been ordered by a law enforcement officer to leave the area of the gathering or special event and the licensee has not complied with the order;
(10) The public memorials on the National Mall and along the Tidal Basin, and any area where firearms are prohibited under federal law or by a federal agency or entity, including U.S. Capitol buildings and grounds;
(11) The White House Complex and its grounds up to and including to the curb of the adjacent sidewalks touching the roadways of the area bounded by Constitution Avenue, N.W., 15th Street, N.W., H Street, N.W., and 17th Street, N.W.;
(12) The U.S. Naval Observatory and its fence line, including the area from the perimeter of its fence up to and including to the curb of the adjacent sidewalks touching the roadway of Observatory Circle, from Calvert Street, N.W., to Massachusetts Avenue, N.W., and around Observatory Circle to the far corner of Observatory Lane;
(13)(A) When a dignitary or high-ranking official of the United States or a state, local, or foreign government is moving under the protection of the MPD, the U.S. Secret Service, the U.S. Capitol Police, or other law enforcement agency assisting or working in concert with MPD, within an area designated by the Chief, the Chief of the U.S. Secret Service, or the Chief of the U.S. Capitol Police, or a designee of any of the foregoing, that does not include any point at a distance greater than 1,000 feet from the moving dignitary or high-ranking official; provided, that no licensee shall be criminally prosecuted unless:
(i) The law enforcement agency provides notice of the designated area by the presence of signs, law enforcement vehicles or officers acting as a perimeter, or other means to make the designated area of protection obvious;
(ii) The District or federal government has provided notice prohibiting the carrying of pistols along a designated route or in a designated area in advance of the event, if possible, and by posted signage along a route or in a designated area; or
(iii) The licensee has been ordered by a law enforcement officer to leave the designated area and the licensee has not complied with the order.
(B) For the purposes of this paragraph, the term “moving” shall include any planned or unplanned stops, including temporary stops, in locations open to the public.
(14) When demonstration in a public place is occurring, within an area designated by the Chief or his or her designee, or other law enforcement agency, that does not include any point at a distance greater than 1,000 feet from the demonstration; provided, that no licensee shall be criminally prosecuted unless:
(A) The law enforcement agency provides notice of the designated area by the presence of signs, law enforcement vehicles or officers acting as a perimeter, or other means to make the designated area of the demonstration obvious;
(B) The District or federal government has provided notice prohibiting the carrying of pistols along or within a demonstration route or designated area in advance of the event, if possible, and by posted signage along a demonstration route or designated area; or
(C) The licensee has been ordered by a law enforcement officer to leave the designated area and the licensee has not complied with the order; or
(15) Any prohibited location or circumstance that the Chief determines by rule; provided, that for spontaneous circumstances, no criminal penalty shall apply unless the licensee has notice of the prohibition and has failed to comply.
(b)(1) The carrying of a concealed pistol on private residential property shall be presumed to be prohibited unless otherwise authorized by the property owner or person in control of the premises and communicated personally to the licensee in advance of entry onto the residential property.
(2) The carrying of a concealed pistol in a church, synagogue, mosque, or other place where people regularly assemble for religious worship shall be presumed to be prohibited unless the property is posted with conspicuous signage allowing the carrying of a concealed pistol, or the owner or authorized agent communicates such allowance personally to the licensee in advance of entry onto the property; provided, that such places may not authorize the carrying of a concealed pistol where services are conducted in locations listed in subsection (a) of this section.
(3) The carrying of a concealed pistol on private property that is not a residence shall be presumed to be permitted unless the property is posted with conspicuous signage prohibiting the carrying of a concealed pistol, or the owner or authorized agent communicates such prohibition personally to the licensee.
(c) Whenever a licensee carries a concealed pistol and approaches any prohibited location, or is subject to any prohibited circumstance, under subsection (a) or (b) of this section, the licensee shall:
(1) If the licensee is in a vehicle or if a vehicle is readily available, immediately secure the pistol in the manner prescribed in § 22-4504.02(b); or
(2) If the licensee does not have a vehicle available, immediately leave the prohibited location or circumstance.
(d) A licensee shall not be in violation of this section:
(1) While he or she is traveling along a public sidewalk that touches the perimeter of any of the premises where the carrying of a concealed pistol is prohibited under subsection (a) and subsection (b) of this section, except for the areas designated in subsection (a)(11) and (a)(12), or along a public street, roadway, or highway if the concealed pistol is carried on his or her person in accordance with this unit, or is being transported by the licensee in accordance with § 22-4504.02; or
(2) While driving a vehicle into and immediately parking at any location listed in subsection (a)(2) of this section for the purpose of picking up or dropping off a student or a child; provided, that the licensee shall secure the concealed pistol in accordance with § 22-4504.02(b), before leaving the parked vehicle.

[LittleLebowski]

Looking into the DC permit.