balext
Active Member
Still no word. Was on hold for 25 minutes today before I had to give up for today.
The article came up when I clicked.I'm not going to register to read the Washington Compost. maybe someone can summarize.
Grace was told that the new review process still would take about 90 days to determine whether his permit will be approved.
He — and Wrenn — are still waiting.
I'm not going to register to read the Washington Compost. maybe someone can summarize.
I put the Post in my cat's litter box. He refused to use it.
Asked him why.
He said "It would be redundant."
Smart cat.
Well that answers my question. At least that means SAF is monitoring the District's shenanigans.
DC used that argument in court and LOSTTheir continuing argument that more concealed carry leads to more crime involving guns has no basis. Concealed carry has had massive expansion in the last 25 years in the US, and there has not been an increase in crimes involving guns.
Not sure how that means SAF is monitoring.
Wrenn is Gura’s client. I would hope my legal council would be monitoring what I sued and eventually one a lawsuit for (the permit).
HUNDREDS APPLY
Grace was told that the new review process still would take about 90 days to determine whether his permit will be approved.
He — and Wrenn — are still waiting.
This posted on Facebook by George Lyon....
"Time line for DC to act on applications.
Some of you have advised that DC is telling applicants that it is a minimum of 90 days to process Concealed Pistol License Applications. That is not what the regulation says. The regulations actually say:
2339.1 The Chief shall issue a preliminary approval to carry a concealed pistol or provide a written denial of the application within a reasonable time after receiving an application containing all required supporting documents, with the exception of proof of completion of the firearms training requirements. A reasonable period of time shall normally be within ninety (90) days; however, the time may be extended by the Chief for an additional ninety (90) days where there is good cause for additional time to complete the investigation and the applicant is so notified in writing.
2340.1 The Chief shall issue a license to carry a concealed pistol or provide a written denial of the application within a reasonable time after receiving a completed application. A reasonable period of time shall normally be within ninety (90) days; however, the time may be extended by the Chief for an additional ninety (90) days where there is good cause for additional time to complete the investigation and the applicant is so notified in writing.
2340.2 A completed application shall satisfy all the requirements prescribed by the Chief including evidence that applicant has satisfied the firearms training requirements in § 2336.
So if you have gone more than 90 days and have not received in writing a notification of good cause for an extension, you ought to be complaining to the gun control section, and/or higher ups that MPD is not following it own regulation."
Even if that argument is true -- and it is not-- that is an argument that is rationing of rights. one could say prove Miranda, strict search warrant requirements, and evidentiary exclusions, and forbidding double jeopardy leads to more crime and then as a result say only a certain number of people should be allowed to exercise those rights, since their excersie increases crime.Their continuing argument that more concealed carry leads to more crime involving guns has no basis. Concealed carry has had massive expansion in the last 25 years in the US, and there has not been an increase in crimes involving guns.