D.C.s violation of the 2nd Amendment struck down, again.....

[2aguy]

The anti-gunners will block the 2nd Amendment every chance they get.....this time they lost, which means this issue will need to go to the Supreme Court....kennedy and ginsburg can't retire fast enough....

And hey....there is even an LGBT component to this victory.......the Pink Pistols win a court case....

BREAKING: District of Columbia's "May Issue" Carry Law Struck Down - The Truth About Guns

A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of the Appeals for the D.C. Circuit has just issued a permanent injunction against the District’s “may issue” firearms licensing scheme, holding that the Second Amendment’s “core lawful purpose” of “self-defense” included the right to carry a firearm beyond the home. The opinion, written by Judge Thomas B. Griffith, held in part:

[C]arrying [a firearm] beyond the home, even in populated areas, even without special need, falls within the [Second] Amendment’s coverage, indeed within its core….

[A]t a minimum, the Amendment’s core must protect carrying given the risks and needs typical of law-abiding citizens. That is a right that most D.C. residents can never exercise, by the law’s very design. In this way, the District’s regulation completely prohibits most residents from exercising the constitutional right to bear arms as viewed in the light cast by history and Heller I. And under Heller I, “complete prohibition of Second Amendment rights are always invalid….

Bans on the ability of most citizens to exercise an enumerated right would have to flunk any judicial test that was appropriately written and applied, so we strike down the District’s law here apart from any particular balancing test.

The Appellate Court heard on two different cases challenging DC’s may issue regime: Wrenn v. D.C., which was backed by Alan Gottlieb’s Second Amendment Foundation, and Grace v. D.C.which was backed by the LGBT gun rights organization, Pink Pistols. Both plaintiffs had sought an injunction against enforcing the District’s “good reason” requirement for the issuance of firearms carry licenses. A lower court judge denied Wrenn’s request last March, but a different judge granted Grace’s request (but stayed the order pending appeal.) The DC Circuit combined the two matters and adjudicated them simultaneously.

 

[martybegan]

The anti-gunners will block the 2nd Amendment every chance they get.....this time they lost, which means this issue will need to go to the Supreme Court....kennedy and ginsburg can't retire fast enough....

BREAKING: District of Columbia's "May Issue" Carry Law Struck Down - The Truth About Guns

Too bad this doesn't apply to NY. I believe the DC Circuit is separate.

 

[JGalt]

Great news! Now they need to work on a reciprocity law, because they don't honor another state's carry permit.

 

[2aguy]

Great news! Now they need to work on a reciprocity law, because they don't honor another state's carry permit.

There is a petition out there for National Reciprocity, I already signed it......

 

[2aguy]

This is a good look at the ruling and what it means....

Appeals court invalidates D.C.'s "good reason" constraint on public carry of firearms

Interestingly, the court entirely side-steps the debate about which level of scrutiny is appropriate in this case. They note that Heller ruled that:

“‘complete prohibition’ of Second Amendment rights are always invalid. It’s appropriate to strike down such ‘total ban’ without bothering to apply tiers of scrutiny because no such analysis could ever sanction obliterations of an enumerated constitutional rights.”

The court notes that the good-reason law naturally “isn’t a ‘total ban’ for the DC population as a whole,” but notes that this is not the correct question. The Second Amendment embodies not a group right, but an individual right. The correct question, then, is whether the good-reason law amounts to a ‘total ban’ for most DC resident’s individual ability to bear arms for self-defense. They conclude that it does.

“[T]he good-reason law is necessarily a total ban on most DC residents’ right to carry a gun in the face of ordinary self-defense needs” and that it does so “by design.” Further, “ans on the ability of most citizens to exercise an enumerated right would have to flunk any judicial test that was appropriately written and applied, so we strike down the District’s law here apart from any particular balancing test.”

And this is where Attorney Alan Gura, et al., representing the plaintiffs hit their home run. They had sought a preliminary injunction temporarily suspending the good-reason law while litigation continued. What they got was the destruction of the law itself. As the court explains:

“Because the District’s good-reason law merits invalidation under Heller regardless of its precise benefits, we would be wasting judicial resources if we remanded for the [lower] court to develop the records in these cases.

… We vacate both orders below and remand with instructions to render permanent injunctions against enforcement of the District’s good-reason law.”

Boom. Mike drop.

The author of the article also points out that the dissenting Judge....doesn't care what the Constitution or Supreme Court Precedent states about the 2nd Amendment......he feels there is no limit in restricting this right...

I also urge you to read the dissent. Under Judge Henderson’s view of the Second Amendment there is literally no restriction on the carrying of firearms in public for personal protection that could not be deemed Constitutional. The weakness of her arguments (addressed and gutted by the majority) and the “word-salad” nature of her decision shows how little intellectual rigor the gun controllers bring to these case