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?
"Only Alaska and Vermont allow such a thing."
ReplyDeleteNot true. Most states allow you to carry a gun without a license.
http://opencarry.org/opencarry.html
"Does the requiring of licensing for folks who want to carry guns violate the spirit of the 2nd Amendment? "
It most certainly does. It only opens the door for discrimination. Like in New York where you can only get a license if you're extremely wealthy and well connected. Or California where you have to have a "good reason" before you can get a license. Unsurprisingly, few people ever come up with a good enough reason.
"What's wrong with regularizing the chaotic hodgepodge mess we've got now?"
Because that would make the whole country into New Jersey and no one likes New Jersey.
I'd LOVE to see how many DC residents actually have a DC carry permit. I'll bet it's less than 100.
ReplyDeleteMuch like MD or NJ they have "ccw" in theory but not in practice. In practice the right to bear arms is denied outright.
Unless you're politically connected you will not get a permit, and since there's no OC that leaves you unable to carry. period.
I know of one person in MD with a carry permit. He blogs at "Progunprogressive" The MSP continually denied him, despite higher ups in the Baltimore PD vouching for him. He was only granted a permit because his story got out in the media.
http://www.alphecca.com/?p=1706
ReplyDeleteAlso a reporter bought a entry level .38 (I'm guessing it cost under $300) and it cost him almost a grand a a LOT of walking around jumping through hoops.
If a person in DC can afford to spend $1000 for a cheap gun, they can afford to move to Virginia and worry less about getting shot.
I agree that permits must be VERY low.
Where I live I do not need a license to carry a gun. I do, however, need a license if I wish to carry a gun concealed.
ReplyDeleteI do not believe in licensing any right guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. However, since I do have the option of open carry, I have compromised and obtained a license so that I can carry concealed and not risk prison while my family relies on me.
To me the ultimate goal is no license required anywhere in the U.S. for any mode of carry.
FWM, I don't follow.
ReplyDelete"I have compromised and obtained a license so that I can carry concealed and not risk prison while my family relies on me."
Mike,
ReplyDeleteWhat I meant is that I do not feel that a license should be necessary and obtaining one is contrary to that belief. However, I also do not have the time or resources to stand and fight in court and challenge the law that says I must have a license to carry concealed.
Therefore, for the sake of my family that relies on me, I compromised and participated in the legal licensing scheme so that I can both protect my family and not be a criminal while doing so.
Basically, I traded principle for security. I am half sheeple now. :)
Does the requiring of licensing for folks who want to carry guns violate the spirit of the 2nd Amendment?
ReplyDeleteWhen the court explicitly admits that " . . . the statute indisputably imposes a regulatory restriction on the right to bear arms," how can there be any question that such a requirement does, indeed, "violate the spirit of" shall not be infringed?