The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old July 28, 2014, 12:19 AM   #26
KyJim
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 26, 2005
Location: The Bluegrass
Posts: 7,746
Quote:
There is no penalty that I'm aware of for intentionally passing unconstitutional laws.
For most municipalities, one "penalty" would be the payment of attorney fees. Even if covered by insurance, it would affect rates. However, D.C.'s unique financial structure makes that financial pressure weaker.
__________________
Jim's Rules of Carry: 1. Any gun is better than no gun. 2. A gun that is reliable is better than a gun that is not. 3. A hole in the right place is better than a hole in the wrong place. 4. A bigger hole is a better hole.
KyJim is offline  
Old July 28, 2014, 12:25 AM   #27
Jim March
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 14, 1999
Location: Pittsburg, CA, USA
Posts: 7,328
Pretty good source:

https://twitter.com/emilymiller/stat...72214558851072

DC Police get word: "no more arrests" if you have a CCW from any state?
__________________
Jim March
Jim March is offline  
Old July 28, 2014, 01:29 AM   #28
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,608
More from the Washington Post here.

Quote:
In an order approved by Police Chief Cathy L. Lanier, police were told that District residents are permitted to carry pistols if the weapons are registered. Those who had not registered their handguns could be charged on that ground, the instruction said.
This is where it gets tricky. I'm not a DC resident, so if I carry there, can I get busted for carrying an unregistered gun? Looks like it.

Meanwhile, the DC attorney general's office will be pursuing a stay, and it looks like the mayor set to replace Gray will be encouraging an appeal.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change.
--Randall Munroe
Tom Servo is offline  
Old July 28, 2014, 02:53 AM   #29
Jim March
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 14, 1999
Location: Pittsburg, CA, USA
Posts: 7,328
NO, Tom, you've got it very wrong.

Why?

Because the court already accepted as fact that non-DC people can't register jack, and then the court told DC they could not discriminate against non-DC people.

This court read the US Supreme court correctly for a change in Saenz v. Roe (1999) and Ward v. Maryland (1870).

Forcing non-DC people to show a card WE CANNOT GET would violate the order.
__________________
Jim March
Jim March is offline  
Old July 28, 2014, 07:03 AM   #30
tomrkba
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 29, 2011
Posts: 634
So at this point...right now until some court mumbo-jumbo says we have to hold off until after the next round in court...we can carry in DC?

Yes we can...until they stay the order. My guess is that this will be the world's fastest stay and appeal.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/...981_story.html

Last edited by tomrkba; July 28, 2014 at 07:14 AM.
tomrkba is offline  
Old July 28, 2014, 07:13 AM   #31
SamNavy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 28, 2011
Location: Virginia Beach, VA
Posts: 248
Emily Miller's Facebook page says she's going on Fox5 DC live at 8am to put it out there.
SamNavy is offline  
Old July 28, 2014, 07:28 AM   #32
Gary L. Griffiths
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 7, 2000
Location: AZ, IA, WA
Posts: 1,296
Quote:
My guess is that this will be the world's fastest stay and appeal.
Stay, yes; appeal, no. If DC can get a stay, they will be more than happy to drag it out for another five years or so. After all, if it isn't stayed, there will be blood running in the street, dogs and cats living together, utter chaos!
__________________
Violence is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and valorous feeling which believes that nothing is worth violence is much worse. Those who have nothing for which they are willing to fight; nothing they care about more than their own personal safety; are miserable creatures who have no chance of being free, unless made and kept so by the exertions of those better than themselves. Gary L. Griffiths, Chief Instructor, Advanced Force Tactics, Inc. (Paraphrasing John Stuart Mill)
Gary L. Griffiths is offline  
Old July 28, 2014, 08:51 AM   #33
JimDandy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,479
Quote:
NO, Tom, you've got it very wrong.
Jim, Tom was quoting/paraphrasing/summarizing someone else, meaning most likely Tom has it right, but the person he was quoting has it wrong. Meaning while you may be right that Y group of people can do X, Tom can still have it right that the police will arrest Y's until it shakes out and any Y's who don't want to go through the hassle should listen to what Tom said.
JimDandy is offline  
Old July 28, 2014, 09:08 AM   #34
Armorer-at-Law
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 29, 2002
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Posts: 372
Quote:
So at this point...right now until some court mumbo-jumbo says we have to hold off until after the next round in court...we can carry in DC?

Yes we can...until they stay the order. My guess is that this will be the world's fastest stay and appeal.
No. In order to possess a handgun in DC, you must register it for a particular use. From the Palmer decision:
Quote:
D.C. Code § 7-2502.01(a) provides that "no persons or organization in the District shall possess or control any firearm, unless the persons or organization holds a valid registration certificate for the firearm." D.C. Code § 7-2502.02(a)(4) provides that individuals who are not retired police officers may only register a handgun "for use in self-defense within that person's home." Pursuant to this statutory limitation, Defendants distribute handgun registration application forms requiring applicants to "give a brief statement of your intended use of the firearm and where the firearm will be kept."

* * *

D.C. Code § 22-4504(a) provides that "[n]o person shall carry within the District of Columbia either openly or concealed on or about their person, a pistol, without a license issued pursuant to District of Columbia law, or any deadly or dangerous weapon capable of being so concealed." The first violation of this section by a non-felon is punishable by a fine up to $5,000 and imprisonment of up to five years.

Former D.C. Code § 22-4506 empowered the District of Columbia's police chief to issue licenses to carry handguns to individuals, including to individuals not residing in the District of Columbia. However, it was Defendant District of Columbia's policy for many years not to issue such licenses. On December 16, 2008, the District of Columbia's City Council and Mayor repealed the Police Chief's authority to issue handgun carry licenses. Accordingly, the District of Columbia lacks any mechanism to issue handgun carry licenses to individuals.
The court simply told DC it had to accept applications for licenses to carry outside the home. It overturned the ban on "registration of handguns to be carried in public for self-defense by law abiding citizens." This does not mean there is "Constitutional carry" in DC now. It simply means that DC has to start accepting applications for registration for the purpose of carry, rather than just for "self-defense within the home."
__________________
Send lawyers, guns, and money...
Armorer-at-Law.com
07FFL/02SOT
Armorer-at-Law is offline  
Old July 28, 2014, 09:26 AM   #35
Gary L. Griffiths
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 7, 2000
Location: AZ, IA, WA
Posts: 1,296
Quote:
The court simply told DC it had to accept applications for licenses to carry outside the home. It overturned the ban on "registration of handguns to be carried in public for self-defense by law abiding citizens." This does not mean there is "Constitutional carry" in DC now. It simply means that DC has to start accepting applications for registration for the purpose of carry, rather than just for "self-defense within the home."
That's not my reading of the decision.
Quote:
ORDERS that Defendants, their officers, agents, servants, employees and all persons in active concert or participation with them who receive actual notice of this Memorandum-Decision and Order, are permanently enjoined from enforcing D.C. Code § 7-2502.02(a)(4) to ban registration of handguns to be carried in public for self-defense by law-abiding citizens; and
5 As stated above, with respect to Plaintiff Raymond's Second Amendment claim, the District of Columbia may not completely bar him, or any other qualified individual, from carrying a handgun in public for self-defense simply because they are not residents of the District.

the Court further ORDERS that Defendants, their officers, agents, servants, employees, and all persons in active concert or participation with them who receive actual notice of this Memorandum-Decision and Order are permanently enjoined from enforcing D.C. Code § 22-4504(a); and the
Court further ORDERS that Defendants, their officers, agents, servants, employees, and all persons in active concert or participation from them who receive actual notice of this Memorandum-Decision and Order from enforcing D.C. Code § 7-2502.02(a)(4) and D.C. Code § 22-4504(a) against individuals based solely on the fact that they are not residents of the District of Columbia.
Simply put, DC may NOT enforce any law against carrying a concealed weapon against a resident who has properly registered the weapon, or against a non-resident who has a valid concealed carry permit from his or her home state.

Those two laws are toast. The District MAY enact a concealed carry statute that has a mechanism for persons to apply for and receive permits, but for now they cannot prohibit residents with registered weapons or non-resident permit holders from carrying in DC.
__________________
Violence is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and valorous feeling which believes that nothing is worth violence is much worse. Those who have nothing for which they are willing to fight; nothing they care about more than their own personal safety; are miserable creatures who have no chance of being free, unless made and kept so by the exertions of those better than themselves. Gary L. Griffiths, Chief Instructor, Advanced Force Tactics, Inc. (Paraphrasing John Stuart Mill)
Gary L. Griffiths is offline  
Old July 28, 2014, 09:42 AM   #36
csmsss
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 24, 2008
Location: Orange, TX
Posts: 2,986
My reading of the tea leaves doesn't lead me to think Judge Scullin is inclined to stay his decision, so any stay will likely have to come from the DC Court of Appeals. I would think if DC CoA was going to issue an emergency stay, they'd have done so by now.

And no, Judge Scullin's ruling makes it quite clear that for non-DC residents, there is now no general prohibition on handgun carry in DC and they may carry wherever federal law permits (ie not in school zones).
csmsss is offline  
Old July 28, 2014, 09:57 AM   #37
Dan F
Member
 
Join Date: July 13, 2011
Location: MD *gah*
Posts: 54
On the face of it, there appears to be no requirement for ANYTHING for non-residents of DC... the POST article mentions non-felons, but the Judge's order does not specify what constitutes a "qualified individual", and as we know there are as many "flavors" of "qualified individuals" outside DC as there are states, including the no-permit states. There also has been no mention of OC vs concealed, so...

Could there conceivably be OC by any non-felon non-DC-resident ?

This is the most fun news I've heard in a long while!
Dan F is offline  
Old July 28, 2014, 09:58 AM   #38
Brian Pfleuger
Staff
 
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Central, Southern NY, USA
Posts: 18,791
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary L. Griffiths
but for now they cannot prohibit residents with registered weapons or non-resident permit holders from carrying in DC.
They may well lose in court but they most certainly can and can be expected to prohibit anyone carrying and arrest anyone they find in possession of an unpermitted firearm in public.

We need to stop expecting these people to capitulate, play by the rules or admit defeat. I don't even think they care about losing in court. It doesn't really change anything, it's just part of their tactic to either win, which they'd love, or delay right to carry essentially indefinitely. They really CAN'T "lose". They can only have one law struck down. Since they have an infinite variety of new laws available for the writing, they just write a new one.

We Gun Rights folks are the modern day Sisyphus.

Quote:
Originally Posted by KyJim
For most municipalities, one "penalty" would be the payment of attorney fees. Even if covered by insurance, it would affect rates. However, D.C.'s unique financial structure makes that financial pressure weaker.
Again, I think this is an underestimation of their strategy and intentions. I dare someone to say "The government cares how much money they spend.", with a straight face.

Financial penalties are no penalty to these people. It's not their money and the people who own the money have shown no propensity to care. These politicians would roll it up and use it for firewood if they had to.
__________________
Still happily answering to the call-sign Peetza.
---
The problem, as you so eloquently put it, is choice.
-The Architect
-----
He is no fool who gives what he can not keep to gain what he can not lose.
-Jim Eliott, paraphrasing Philip Henry.

Last edited by Brian Pfleuger; July 28, 2014 at 10:21 AM.
Brian Pfleuger is offline  
Old July 28, 2014, 10:28 AM   #39
Gary L. Griffiths
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 7, 2000
Location: AZ, IA, WA
Posts: 1,296
Quote:
They may well lose in court but they most certainly can and can be expected to prohibit anyone carrying and arrest anyone they find in possession of an unpermitted firearm in public.
Brian, I hear you. I really do. But I think your well-founded cynicism may just be unwarranted in this case. Again, you may call me a cockeyed optimist, but Emily Miller reports the DC Police Chief is already putting out instructions not to arrest concealed carriers who are registered gun owner residents or non-felon non-residents.

http://concealednation.org/2014/07/b...nd-open-carry/

I can actually see DC not appealing this decision, but I can also see them slapping a may-issue concealed carry statute onto the books just as fast as they can copy New Jersey's law.
__________________
Violence is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and valorous feeling which believes that nothing is worth violence is much worse. Those who have nothing for which they are willing to fight; nothing they care about more than their own personal safety; are miserable creatures who have no chance of being free, unless made and kept so by the exertions of those better than themselves. Gary L. Griffiths, Chief Instructor, Advanced Force Tactics, Inc. (Paraphrasing John Stuart Mill)

Last edited by Gary L. Griffiths; July 28, 2014 at 10:36 AM.
Gary L. Griffiths is offline  
Old July 28, 2014, 10:37 AM   #40
Brian Pfleuger
Staff
 
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Central, Southern NY, USA
Posts: 18,791
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary L. Griffiths
I can also see them slapping a may-issue concealed carry statute onto the books just as fast as they can copy New Jersey's law.
Oh, I'm sure they will but I've been living under NY's "May Issue" for my whole life and it's been here a lot longer than that.

"May issue" amounts to no issue if the judge/county/jurisdiction in question decides such, and DC will. In fact, that'll be their intent... and they'll lose... in about 3-5 years... and then they'll do it again.
__________________
Still happily answering to the call-sign Peetza.
---
The problem, as you so eloquently put it, is choice.
-The Architect
-----
He is no fool who gives what he can not keep to gain what he can not lose.
-Jim Eliott, paraphrasing Philip Henry.
Brian Pfleuger is offline  
Old July 28, 2014, 11:12 AM   #41
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,608
Quote:
Meaning while you may be right that Y group of people can do X, Tom can still have it right that the police will arrest Y's until it shakes out and any Y's who don't want to go through the hassle should listen to what Tom said.
Actually, I did read that a bit wrong. The District is enjoined against enforcing § 7-2502.02(a)(4), which reads:

Quote:
A registration certificate shall not be issued for a (...) Pistol not validly registered to the current registrant in the District prior to September 24, 1976
This means registration for new pistols must be allowed. This was supposed to be the result of Heller, but DC has done their best to make that process all but impossible.

The other statute is § 22-4504(a), which reads:

Quote:
No person shall carry within the District of Columbia either openly or concealed on or about their person, a pistol, or any deadly or dangerous weapon capable of being so concealed.
So, it's actually two different things. However, handguns possessed in the District are still required to be registered. The DC authorities could argue that the first provision (registration) overrides the second (non-resident carry), and they could bust people for carrying an unregistered weapon.

Bear in mind, they're going to do everything they can not to comply with this.

Of course, we could tell those Texas open-carry guys to give it a go and let them be the test case.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change.
--Randall Munroe
Tom Servo is offline  
Old July 28, 2014, 11:20 AM   #42
maestro pistolero
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,092
DC Police Chief orders arrests to halt, Including non-residents

According to the Washington Post:

Quote:
D.C. police were told Sunday not to arrest people for carrying handguns on the street in the wake of a judge’s ruling that overturned the city’s principal gun-control law.
It is interesting that out-of-state residents who are in compliance with their own state laws will also not be charged. Does this mean I can finally go to DC?

Quote:
Lanier’s instructions to police also said that residents of other jurisdictions without felony records would not be charged under the ban on carrying pistols.
maestro pistolero is offline  
Old July 28, 2014, 11:38 AM   #43
Gary L. Griffiths
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 7, 2000
Location: AZ, IA, WA
Posts: 1,296
Quote:
Does this mean I can finally go to DC?
That would be my reading of it, especially if you have a concealed carry permit from your home state. It doesn't look like it's necessary under the new guidelines, but it would be on-the-spot verification that you're not a felon.
__________________
Violence is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and valorous feeling which believes that nothing is worth violence is much worse. Those who have nothing for which they are willing to fight; nothing they care about more than their own personal safety; are miserable creatures who have no chance of being free, unless made and kept so by the exertions of those better than themselves. Gary L. Griffiths, Chief Instructor, Advanced Force Tactics, Inc. (Paraphrasing John Stuart Mill)
Gary L. Griffiths is offline  
Old July 28, 2014, 11:50 AM   #44
diamondd817
Member
 
Join Date: January 20, 2013
Posts: 18
http://alangura.com/wp-content/uploa.../07-137-14.pdf


DC police orders on ruling signed by the chief.
diamondd817 is offline  
Old July 28, 2014, 01:25 PM   #45
BobCat45
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 18, 2004
Location: East Bernard, TX
Posts: 210
Wow diamondd817! That .pdf made it so "real" it shocked me into adding an irrelevant comment here.
__________________
Retractable claws - the *original* concealed carry

http://www.bayourifles.org
TinyURL.com/qgdojvh
BobCat45 is offline  
Old July 28, 2014, 02:28 PM   #46
JN01
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 16, 2005
Location: SW Ohio
Posts: 513
Quote:
D.C. Code § 22-4504(a) provides that "[n]o person shall carry within the District of
Columbia either openly or concealed on or about their person, a pistol, without a license issued
pursuant to District of Columbia law, or any deadly or dangerous weapon capable of being so
concealed."
If DC may not enforce this code, but if for some reason the handgun registration requirement still applies, would not the carrying of knives, impact weapons, or other weapons be an option?
JN01 is offline  
Old July 28, 2014, 02:42 PM   #47
kilimanjaro
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 23, 2009
Posts: 1,999
Nope, the court order was about handguns.
kilimanjaro is offline  
Old July 28, 2014, 02:53 PM   #48
Spats McGee
Staff
 
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 5,195
So, jumping in without having read the decision . . . . If I understand this correctly, if I wanted to go off and CC in DC, I'd have to register my gun with DC first? Makes me wonder just how onerous those requirements are, seeing as how I'm unable to register a gun in AR.
__________________
A gunfight is not the time to learn new skills.

If you ever have a real need for more than a couple of magazines, your problem is not a shortage of magazines. It's a shortage of people on your side of the argument. -- Art Eatman
Spats McGee is offline  
Old July 28, 2014, 03:04 PM   #49
dakota.potts
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 25, 2013
Location: Saint Augustine, Florida
Posts: 1,270
My reading of it was that DC residents must register their handguns and that any one from another state need only have a carry permit.

Which makes me wonder about people from Arizona, Alaska, Vermont etc. where no permit is needed to carry a firearm.
__________________
For firearms news and discussion from a fellow TFL member, visit shootersreportblog.wordpress.com. If you have a suggestion or would like to comment or contribute, I welcome private messages!

The Shooter's Report is also on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/theshootersreport
dakota.potts is online now  
Old July 28, 2014, 03:26 PM   #50
diamondd817
Member
 
Join Date: January 20, 2013
Posts: 18
Guys, read the PDF file I posted above. It is the orders from the cheif as to who can a can not carry a gun. It even cites examples and has the chief's signature.....

Last edited by diamondd817; July 28, 2014 at 03:33 PM.
diamondd817 is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:22 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.16004 seconds with 7 queries