District of Columbia Issues First Carry Licenses

PO2012 · Jan 28, 2015

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local...8f3938-a64d-11e4-a7c2-03d37af98440_story.html

According to the Washington Post, 66 people have applied. Of those, 8 applications were granted, 11 were denied and the remainder are pending.

Below is a link to the instructions provided by the Metropolitan Police in reference to apply for a concealed pistol license:

http://mpdc.dc.gov/sites/default/fi...icenseApplicationInstructions102214_FINAL.pdf

In these instructions, "Good Reason to Fear Injury to Person or Property" and "Other Proper Reason for Carrying a Pistol" are defined. The Metropolitan Police explicitly state that their regulations are based upon those used by New York State, New York City, New Jersey and, of course, Maryland and take the time to break down which requirements come from which State's laws.

The requirements are as onerous and unconstitutional as one would expect - surviving previous assaults, carrying large sums of cash/jewelry on one's person etc.

One very odd stipulation is that one can apply for a license to carry a concealed firearm in order to defend an immediate family member who is physically or mentally incapable of defending his or her person or property from attack. This criteria appears to stand on its own and be completely separate from any other requirement. Taken at face value, one is eligible to be licensed to carry a concealed firearm to protect someone in a wheelchair, but the person in the wheelchair can't be licensed to defend himself.

Having read the application and the accompanying instructions I don't believe for a moment that D.C.'s licensing scheme will survive judicial review. The City Council and the Mayor made a serious miscalculation when they enacted this legislation. Not only does it not meet Constitutional muster but they've clearly and irrevocably bound their licensing scheme to those in New York, New Jersey and Maryland. If D.C.'s licensing scheme falls, it's only a matter of time before NY, NJ and MD see their licensing schemes struck down as well. If I didn't know better, I would say they were trying to do us a favor. This scheme is so ridiculous that it almost appears designed to fail.

The sphinx · Jan 28, 2015

What a joke

PO2012 · Jan 28, 2015

The sphinx said:
What a joke

Oh, it gets better.

The regulations specifically state that a licensee may only possess enough ammunition to "render the pistol fully loaded" and then goes on to state that "in no event shall that amount be greater than ten (10) rounds of ammunition"

Basically, it's illegal to carry a spare magazine unless you carry five rounds in one and five rounds in the other or some other such nonsensical arrangement. There is no way in hell that this type of regulation will survive judicial review. It is the very definition of arbitrary and capricious.

The fact that this crap was ever passed into law infuriates me. At the same time, I thank my lucky stars that our enemies are this stupid. They've written serious defects into this legislation that will eventually get it overturned.

Inigoes · Jan 28, 2015

Did the plaintiffs get their licenses?

traveller · Jan 28, 2015

OMG, there will be blood in the streets.

I hope they all behave themselves.

Jim12 · Jan 28, 2015

The requirements are as onerous and unconstitutional as one would expect - surviving previous assaults, carrying large sums of cash/jewelry on one's person etc.

I've never understood the part about surviving a previous assault.

Making it through a random act of violence alive doesn't make a person any more likely to have it happen again. In fact, it seems less likely. Lightning doesn't strike twice. Just another example of arbitrary and capricious rules that should be struck down. By trying to fashion an exception to make the prohibition seem less draconian, the exception simply proves the rule is irrational. They should allow people who haven't been assaulted previously to carry, on the grounds that they are more likely to be hit than those who already have been. :-)

Ack Ack · Jan 28, 2015

I read the DC criteria when it came out and paid particular attention to the part that said "in order to defend an immediate family member who is physically or mentally incapable of defending his or her person or property from attack."

My first though was my 7 year old son. While he's a bright kid, he's only 7 and like all little kids, he's mentally and physically incapable of defending himself from an attack. No different than an adult with a disability. To take it one step further, I'd say that everyone is physically incapable of defending themselves from an attack. Except in the rare instance where there is a single attacker who is smaller in stature than the victim, less physically fit than the victim, and not armed in any way. While valid and logical, I'm sure this approach would get denied.

danb · Jan 28, 2015

PO2012 said:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/local...8f3938-a64d-11e4-a7c2-03d37af98440_story.html

In these instructions, "Good Reason to Fear Injury to Person or Property" and "Other Proper Reason for Carrying a Pistol" are defined. The Metropolitan Police explicitly state that their regulations are based upon those used by New York State, New York City, New Jersey and, of course, Maryland and take the time to break down which requirements come from which State's laws.

Which requirements from which state.... So they did not just take the requirements from one state... they took them from all states and combined them into a super-set. Go figure.

Kman · Jan 28, 2015

While all of the conditions and hurdles suck, the grant rate of 8 out of 66 applicants is probably a better rate than PRMD. Just a guess though.

Elliotte · Jan 28, 2015

Kman said:
While all of the conditions and hurdles suck, the grant rate of 8 out of 66 applicants is probably a better rate than PRMD. Just a guess though.

Until Judge Legg made his Woollard ruling, wasn't MD up around a 90% approval rate? This was mostly b/c the only folks who applied were ones that knew they had the G&S requirements or were renewals.

md123 · Jan 28, 2015

Shouldn't magazine limits less than the amount ordinarily carried by rookie cops be layup cases post-heller? (excuse run on sentence)

You'd think that even a left wing judge would find that to be ridiculous and indefensible. If a 11+ rounds is a bannana clip only capable of mass murder, why have police carry them since the 80's?

Apparently not....

swinokur · Jan 28, 2015

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local...8f3938-a64d-11e4-a7c2-03d37af98440_story.html

Don't use rational thinking to think we will win. We thought Judge Legg's decision was irreversible too.

pbharvey · Jan 28, 2015

I hope Emily gets her gun carry permit.

jbrown50 · Jan 28, 2015

D.C. police have granted eight people permits to carry concealed firearms in public in the city since the department began accepting applications in October, according to figures released Tuesday.

Permits being granted and permits being issued are two different things. Do these 8 applicants actually have their permits in hand or are they still waiting for DC to finalize their training process?

Z_Man · Jan 28, 2015

my wife walks around daily with ~10k worth of jewelry on her person, sounds like she could get a carry permit... by that token how about a 12k rolex?

press1280 · Jan 28, 2015

jbrown50 said:
Permits being granted and permits being issued are two different things. Do these 8 applicants actually have their permits in hand or are they still waiting for DC to finalize their training process?

I assume granted means that DC had signed off on their "need" for it, and with the training they'll get that permit. I would be surprised if those granted permits include the plaintiffs. Emily Miller seems more likely to get one than the plaintiffs.

traveller · Jan 28, 2015

Z_Man said:
my wife walks around daily with ~10k worth of jewelry on her person, sounds like she could get a carry permit...

Mhh, never thought about it under that angle.

Mr Bear · Jan 28, 2015

DC is assembling this process a piece at a time rather than have the entire process up & running when permits are issued. Sound familiar???? Sure, modeling it after Md. Where exactly are DC residents supposed to obtain this training? Won't be happening in DC. An undue burden, perhaps.

The inability of the DC gov't to do anything right is one of the reasons my dad recently moved out of DC.

John from MD · Jan 28, 2015

I wonder if MSP would buy off on the taking care of a disabled person who can't run.
I have to push my wife in a wheel chair everywhere we go and I sure ain't going to leave her.

This has kept us from going to any place in Baltimore since she has been in the chair. :sad20:

John

kenpo333 · Jan 28, 2015

This is something I didn't think would happen in my life time. Not enough but it is a start. Makes me a little more optimistic.

District of Columbia Issues First Carry Licenses

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

Active Member

Ultimate Member

Active Member

Head'n for the hills

The one with two L

Let Freedom Ring

Active Member

dont be a dumbass

Blah, blah, blah

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

In a State of Bliss

Habitual Testifier

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

The one with two L

Ultimate Member

American Patriot

Ultimate Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics