New DC lawsuit - 3 black men sue to get their carry permits 10/27/22

[MeatGrinder]

So, after I learned about using incognito mode for browsing, I occasionally check out the Washington Post. I see an interesting article today and I'm thinking that this is gonna take off.

Title:​

D.C. won’t give 3 Black men concealed-carry licenses. They’re suing.​

site:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2022/10/27/guns-concealed-carry-lawsuit-discrimination/

Key paragraphs:
"Now 24, Millard has sued the District, alleging that it discriminates against some people by denying them concealed-carry licenses — and that many of these people are Black men. The lawsuit said D.C. police unreasonably refused licenses to those with minor criminal convictions and arrests with no convictions, sometimes unfairly using their involvement in violent incidents against them."

......

"Filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia last month, the suit says Millard and two other Black men were unable to get concealed-carry licenses because the city wrongly said they have violent histories or misjudged their criminal records.
D.C. wants to save at-risk people. Violence, missteps marred the effort.
The suit argues that crimes or violent incidents they witnessed or minor crimes they committed should not prevent them from carrying weapons hidden from public view. In 2019, D.C. police released statistics showing 70 percent of people stopped by officers in a one-month period were Black, though the city is no longer majority Black."

 

[Garet Jax]

sometimes unfairly using their involvement in violent incidents against them

This is awesome!

 

[Afrikeber]

Yea, I heard about this. It’ll take awhile but I do see this taking off.

 

[pbharvey]

Key paragraphs:
"Now 24, Millard has sued the District, alleging that it discriminates against some people by denying them concealed-carry licenses — and that many of these people are Black men. The lawsuit said D.C. police unreasonably refused licenses to those with minor criminal convictions and arrests with no convictions, sometimes unfairly using their involvement in violent incidents against them."

Are black men getting denied and non-blacks aren't?
I'm not understanding the race component of the "minor criminal convictions" prohibition.

 

[4g64loser]

Are black men getting denied and non-blacks aren't?
I'm not understanding the race component of the "minor criminal convictions" prohibition.

I'm not sure that their suit is specifically claiming that blacks are targeted for denial based on race. The article doesn't call out that factoid clearly. I am sure that, being a Post article, any hint of racial component will be played up.

I may be wrong but I read this as three men have been denied based on non-federally-disqualifying crimes (not stuff that gets you denied by NICS) for which they were arrested and/or convicted. These three are suing for relief. The three happen to be black. This is just my opinion based on the article.

 

[pbharvey]

I'm not sure that their suit is specifically claiming that blacks are targeted for denial based on race. The article doesn't call out that factoid clearly. I am sure that, being a Post article, any hint of racial component will be played up.

I may be wrong but I read this as three men have been denied based on non-federally-disqualifying crimes (not stuff that gets you denied by NICS) for which they were arrested and/or convicted. These three are suing for relief. The three happen to be black. This is just my opinion based on the article.

Do other states impose stricter-than-federal disqualification rules for CCW approval?

 

[4g64loser]

Do other states impose stricter-than-federal disqualification rules for CCW approval?

Maryland sure does. And the privacy waiver on the md application is obscene overreach. I know someone who was denied under the old md rules because his ex said he liked to drink (never had a conviction related to it).

The good character crap is ridiculous. It is not only subjective and invasive in practice, it is all but impossible to objectively quantify in law.

 

[teratos]

Sadly, Text, History and Tradition will support banning persons of color from having firearms. Let’s see if DC will use it.

All gun control is racist.

 

[RFBfromDE]

Are black men getting denied and non-blacks aren't?
I'm not understanding the race component of the "minor criminal convictions" prohibition.

The new paradigm does not require cause and effect.

Only disproportionality.

I hope DC gets smacked. Hard.

 

[HaveBlue]

Good ole “disparate impact” to the rescue!

 

[jbrown50]

From one of the communists in the comments section:

The Octothorpe wrote:
I suspect seeing lots of Black men and women carrying sidearms is going to focus the minds of the white gun nuts and maybe then they'll begin to realize we need to regulate these weapons a bit more carefully than we've been doing.

These communists are saying that "white gun nuts" are racists who's fears of Blacks being armed will make them more receptive to gun regulation. In other words in order to achieve their gun ban agenda the communists are more than willing to work with White supremacists.

 

[4g64loser]

From one of the communists in the comments section:


These communists are saying that "white gun nuts" are racists who's fears of Blacks being armed will make them more receptive to gun regulation. In other words in order to achieve their gun ban agenda the communists are more than willing to work with White supremacists.

Good luck to that moron......I haven't been in a match or a class environment and observed an act of racism. I expect someone, somewhere, has. Regardless of the color of the shooters skin, the general focus of any pinging is on their performance on the stage or their choice of equipment.

These unhinged freaks are going to have to try a lot harder if they want to hold back the floodgates of minority gun ownership. Think how much harder it would have been for democrats to subjugate and terrorize southern blacks if it hadn't been illegal for blacks to own guns......

 

[rob]

Maryland sure does. And the privacy waiver on the md application is obscene overreach. I know someone who was denied under the old md rules because his ex said he liked to drink (never had a conviction related to it).

The good character crap is ridiculous. It is not only subjective and invasive in practice, it is all but impossible to objectively quantify in law.

That's the point. If you can make qualifications subjective, you can deny anyone and everyone you want to.

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

 

[4g64loser]

That's the point. If you can make qualifications subjective, you can deny anyone and everyone you want to.

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

Pretty much how md worked.

 

[press1280]

Maryland sure does. And the privacy waiver on the md application is obscene overreach. I know someone who was denied under the old md rules because his ex said he liked to drink (never had a conviction related to it).

The good character crap is ridiculous. It is not only subjective and invasive in practice, it is all but impossible to objectively quantify in law.

Sounds like 2 of these guys were denied under good moral character. The other had "lesser weapons charge", probably carrying W/O a license, although you assume they have legally registered firearms, which then begs the question if they're such a danger, why can they own firearms at all?

 

[teratos]

Sounds like 2 of these guys were denied under good moral character. The other had "lesser weapons charge", probably carrying W/O a license, although you assume they have legally registered firearms, which then begs the question if they're such a danger, why can they own firearms at all?

It’s like the logic behind the red flag laws. A person is such a danger, the police must go and remove their firearms under threat of force. Yet that person still has a car, knives, bats, golf clubs, diesel fuel and fertilizer… all sorts of weapons. Some worse than guns.

 

[wpage]

Since those currently in office consider themselves Royals. Royalties do rule thier subjects. Expect subjective invasion of your rights when they subjugate your freedoms...

Maybe these black dudes can help freedom ring a higher note.

 

[Longhorse]

I hope these gentlemen get their concealed carry licenses. The 2nd Amendment says "shall not be infringed," not "shall not be infringed except in cases of minor criminal convictions or arrest with no conviction."

 

[4g64loser]

Sounds like 2 of these guys were denied under good moral character. The other had "lesser weapons charge", probably carrying W/O a license, although you assume they have legally registered firearms, which then begs the question if they're such a danger, why can they own firearms at all?

I do assume that the weapons they wish to carry were legally acquired and possessed. I know assuming is not good but that's what I have to do in this instance. I give the gentlemen the benefit of the doubt until I see that a jury has convicted them of a legally disqualifying crime.

If they can pass a NICS, they should be able to carry. I stand by what I said about good moral character standards being BS.

And the lesser weapons charge could be just about anything. I know a guy who had his camping gear in his TRUNK and was charged for concealed dangerous weapon by a maryland department for the hunting knife in his pack. Took years to get rid of that mess. And a lot of money. Before I condemn anyone arrested on a charge, I really want to know more details.

 

[antco]

There’s a lot to unwrap from this lawsuit. Three separate and unrelated men, with notable differences in their adult history which led to their denials. However, I’ll leave you with this quote from the Mayor:

D.C. is struggling to contain gun violence. In 2021, more than 200 people were killed in the city — a level not seen in more than a decade. This year, homicides are on track to reach a two-decade high, and Mayor Muriel E. Bowser (D) declared gun violence a public health crisis last year.
“You have a mayor who hates guns,” she said in 2015 — as the suit points out. “If it was up to me, we wouldn’t have any handguns in the District of Columbia. I swear to protect the Constitution and what the courts say, but I will do it in the most restrictive way as possible.”