An appeals court in Washington, D.C. has upheld the city's extremely restrictive law requiring residents to obtain licenses to carry handguns outside of their homes.
The U.S. Supreme Court's ruling last year in the high-profile D.C. v. Heller Second Amendment case did not invalidate the District of Columbia's licensing requirements, and even appears to have endorsed them, the appeals court ruled.
Was this decision ever in doubt? Only Alaska and Vermont allow such a thing. I'm surprised the motion wasn't thrown out at a lower level.
"While the statute indisputably imposes a regulatory restriction on the right to bear arms, on its face it does not stifle a fundamental liberty," the D.C. Court of Appeals concluded in an opinion dated August 27.
What's your opinion? Does the requiring of licensing for folks who want to carry guns violate the spirit of the 2nd Amendment? The Court said no. What do you think?
If such licensing can be considered Constitutional, what's to prevent the further requirement of demanding ALL gun owners to be licensed? What's wrong with regularizing the chaotic hodgepodge mess we've got now?
What's your opinion?