VICTORY IN PALMER!!!!

Patrick · Jul 27, 2014

Southwest Chuck said:
So the DC Circuit covers the same jurisdiction as the DC District and nothing more? Interesting. I thought it would be more, based on other Circuit jurisdictions. But then again, DC is just DC.

the DC circuit covers all federal regulation and rulemaking everywhere. so in some ways, it is the largest of the circuits.

whistlersmother · Jul 27, 2014

teratos said:
Some restrictions are still viewd as OK. It even says so in this decision. I suspect the House and Senate office buildings would be restricted areas.

Yes, going forward I would agree with you about the House & Senate office buildings.

But those two currently charged were charged under DC law, which is now ruled to be unconstitutional.

I'm just wondering if the arrest and charging of these two was the impetus for this ruling.

Southwest Chuck · Jul 27, 2014

Patrick said:
the DC circuit covers all federal regulation and rulemaking everywhere. so in some ways, it is the largest of the circuits.

That's what I thought :innocent0

. Thanks Patrick for chiming in :thumbsup:

.

So if the DC Circuit affirms, this could have some far reaching effects, if I'm not mistaken (and I may very well be

).

Mr H · Jul 27, 2014

swinokur said:
IANAL but if the property is a unit (not necessarily a park) of the National Park System it seems to be included. Guess we need clarification on Park Property in DC. I assume it is since the NPS is responsible for it. Maybe one of the eagles can jump in here.

This is why I mentioned it.

I almost ran afoul of the (in)distinctions a few years back.

Properties like National Wildlife Refuges are a different arm than NPS.

Ag, Interior, ACE, BLM... all (and maybe others) control their lands differently, and not all fall under the same laws re: carry.

As explained to me by uniformed staff in several places, NWRs, for example, do not allow concealed carry of handguns, even in carry states (DE, to be specific).

Southwest Chuck · Jul 27, 2014

Mr H said:
This is why I mentioned it.

I almost ran afoul of the (in)distinctions a few years back.

Properties like National Wildlife Refuges are a different arm than NPS.

Ag, Interior, ACE, BLM... all (and maybe others) control their lands differently, and not all fall under the same laws re: carry.

NWRs, for example, do not allow carry.

Not sure that's totally accurate as a blanket statement, since you can hunt in many of them, and a handgun is a legal method of take on many species, from my understanding anyway. Just saying :innocent0

http://www.fws.gov/refuges/hunting/

ozwyn · Jul 27, 2014

More evidence the rather affordable (150 still i think?) lifetime membership to the SAF is a sound contribution to gun rights.

Gura has done more for gun rights than maybe anyone in my lifetime. A couple more wins and he will have to be held in the kind of esteemed company as JMB for gun owners.

Southwest Chuck · Jul 27, 2014

^^^
I agree. Maybe one day we'll be calling him "Justice" Gura and he can contribute from the other side of the Gavel, too?

Time will tell, lol :party29:

Mr H · Jul 27, 2014

Southwest Chuck said:
Not sure that's totally accurate as a blanket statement, since you can hunt in many of them, and a handgun is a legal method of take on many species, from my understanding anyway. Just saying
http://www.fws.gov/refuges/hunting/

I was speaking of CC handguns, and I was turned away in a UT-reciprocal carry state. I'll go back and clarify my post.

Mr H · Jul 27, 2014

DC Ch 7 just had a piece on the ruling, but I only caught the end of it.

Wife said it seemed fair and thorough to her, but all I saw was:

--a hipster chick assuming angry people would have arguments escalate
--a mature white guy looking forward to the possibility of carrying at night
--comments that Council Members will be defending their laws

I'll see if I can find it online and see what else there might have been

redeemed.man · Jul 27, 2014

mpdc4511 said:
Great news! This is going to be a logistical and administrative nightmare for the city.

Has your department issued any guidance to officers as of yet?

dblas · Jul 27, 2014

Mr H said:
DC Ch 7 just had a piece on the ruling, but I only caught the end of it.

Wife said it seemed fair and thorough to her, but all I saw was:

--a hipster chick assuming angry people would have arguments escalate
--a mature white guy looking forward to the possibility of carrying at night
--comments that Council Members will be defending their laws

I'll see if I can find it online and see what else there might have been

DC Ch 4 had a story as well and interviewed Lions (one of the PLantiffs).

TopShelf · Jul 27, 2014

Nice work Gura and SAF! This is really good news!

Inigoes · Jul 27, 2014

boundlessdyad said:
Has your department issued any guidance to officers as of yet?

Likely they won't until the appeal process has completed.

ryan_j · Jul 27, 2014

mpdc4511 said:
Great news! This is going to be a logistical and administrative nightmare for the city.

Doesn't really seem to be a problem for other cities that have shall-issue CCW. They only make it a problem because they want to screw with the right as much as possible and are probably trying to find a way around the ruling.

ryan_j · Jul 27, 2014

Mr H said:
Was looking forward to your input, but this a little bit of a shocker!!

Not for me. :innocent0

McJosh · Jul 27, 2014

This is great news. Good job.

swinokur · Jul 27, 2014

If these cities spent half as much time hassling folks and trying these stupid legal maneuvers and just issued permits, they'd have time and money to actually accomplish something. Like reducing gang and youth violence.

They're not interested in that however. Look at Chicago.

MJD438 · Jul 27, 2014

If DC appeals to the DC Circuit, and the DC Circuit affirms, does that ruling apply to all federal jurisdictions?

Gryphon · Jul 27, 2014

No just DC creating more of a split

danb · Jul 27, 2014

ryan_j said:
Doesn't really seem to be a problem for other cities that have shall-issue CCW. They only make it a problem because they want to screw with the right as much as possible and are probably trying to find a way around the ruling.

DC is not just any city. Most things in DC are near a school, embassy, secure facility, government agency building, or other sensitive facility. IMO a law that says that carry is only approved on may issue basis within 150 yards of a sensitive facility could very realistically pass muster on national security grounds, even under Strict scrutiny, yet restrict carry to 10-20% of DC (residential areas).

This is not just a logistical nightmare from a LEO point of view, but someone is probably burning the midnight oil drawing circles of various radii around sensitive areas to see how much of DC is left. The court didsay, restrictions on the right in sensitive places was presumptively constitutional.

When people say, surely the court will uphold carry in DC, remember, the Supreme Court restricts freedom of the press and assembly of their own front steps for security reasons.

VICTORY IN PALMER!!!!

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

MSI Executive Member

Peace through strength

A Calguns Interloper.. ;)

Unincited Co-Conservative

A Calguns Interloper.. ;)

Ultimate Member

A Calguns Interloper.. ;)

Unincited Co-Conservative

Unincited Co-Conservative

Ultimate Member

Past President, MSI

@TopShelfJS

Head'n for the hills

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Member

In a State of Bliss

Ultimate Member

inveniam viam aut faciam

dont be a dumbass

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics