VICTORY IN PALMER!!!!

[ryan_j]

Pennsylvania requires a resident permit from your home state as a condition of getting a nonresident permit from Pennsylvania for people from the 20 or so states that don't have reciprocity.

DC would argue that if your own state hasn't even issued you one, we shouldn't have to either.

Yeah and I think that is dumb.

I can vehicle carry in PA with any permit.

I can openly carry in PA without a permit at all.

I can rent an apartment in PA, move there and get a PA DL and get a PA LTCF as a resident. Nothing changes other than my residence address.

NJ won't give me a permit because it doesn't give them out to 99.98% of people who aren't LEOs. PA will give them out to anyone who has a clean background. Does it really make sense that they should give NJ the benefit of the doubt and deny me a permit? It doesn't. There's really no reason for the home state permit requirement anymore. CT used to have it but now they accept a permit from any state.

 

[swinokur]

From Sculin's ruling

In light of Heller, McDonald, and their progeny, there is no longer any basis on which this Court can conclude that the District of Columbia’s total ban on the public carrying of ready-to-use handguns outside the home is constitutional under any level of scrutiny. Therefore, the Court finds that the District of Columbia’s complete ban on the carrying of handguns in public is unconstitutional. Accordingly, the Court grants Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment and enjoins Defendants from enforcing the home limitations of D.C. Code § 7-2502.02(a)(4) and enforcing D.C. Code § 22-4504(a) unless and until such time as the District of Columbia adopts a licensing mechanism consistent with constitutional standards enabling people to exercise their Second Amendment right to bear arms.4 Furthermore, this injunction prohibits the District from completely banning the carrying of handguns in public for self-defense by otherwise qualified non-residents based solely on the fact that they are not residents of the District.

This would seem to say if you're not prohibited, you can carry. Permit or residency not relevant to the ruling. I don't see how DC can get around the rejection of residency being an issue

But IANAL.

 

[krucam]

DC Reply in Support of 180 Day Stay of Mandate

They say you get more bees with honey vs vinegar. DC hasn't learned that one. In their final Reply in Suport of Stay (180 days), they say Scullin got it wrong, misread Heller I, say the Dicta in McDonald/Heller regarding carry is wrong, saying the Court ignored DC's 'historical evidence'.

They're rearguing the 5 year case stuck in District. Not the Motion for Stay.

I hope Scullin reads through the distractions.

Next Monday, 8/25/14...a Notice of Appeal is needed if DC wishes to re-argue the case.

 

[DC-W]

Oh snap!

 

[ryan_j]

"Neither the Supreme Court nor the D.C. Circuit has determined that the Second Amendment extends beyond the home. "

I guess the well regulated militia shall continue to do their, err... drills in the bedroom.

 

[JC92]

SCOTUS addressed "in the home" in HELLER because that was the issue before it, not because they were circumscribing the right. Too many of the lower courts and anti-2A entities purposefully misconstrue this statement in HELLER. It is long past time for SCOTUS to accept a case and rule clearly on the 2A.

 

[swinokur]

I thought the phrasing "most notably in the home" acknowledged a right outside as well.

guess not.

 

[krucam]

My contention is the attempted rearguing of the Merits. IF I were the Judge a I would ignore everything not involving 180 vs 90 days of Stay.

 

[Inigoes]

I thought the phrasing "most notably in the home" acknowledged a right outside as well.

guess not.

Well there is hunting...

Oh wait! That is not protected by the second amendment. It is a privilege!

 

[press1280]

My contention is the attempted rearguing of the Merits. IF I were the Judge a I would ignore everything not involving 180 vs 90 days of Stay.

I'm thinking they'll appeal, if for nothing more than wasting time. They are still holding to the hardline of "only in the home", which is good for us.

 

[Peaceful John]

I'm thinking they'll appeal, if for nothing more than wasting time. They are still holding to the hardline of "only in the home", which is good for us.

The last time they appealed we got "in the home". Perhaps this time, "outside the home". (No PM's necessary, friends. The quotes were not accidental.)

D.C: The gift that keeps on giving.

 

[br3krj]

Pennsylvania requires a resident permit from your home state as a condition of getting a nonresident permit from Pennsylvania for people from the 20 or so states that don't have reciprocity. DC would argue that if your own state hasn't even issued you one, we shouldn't have to either.

I am a Maryland resident with a Maryland permit (although with restrictions). I drove to Lebanon, PA today and applied for a PA non resident permit. Met the nicest people thee in the sheriffs office and after 10 minutes, $20 and my picture taken, I was on my way. Said I should receive it in the mail in 45 days. Why can't every state be like PA?

 

[Straightshooter]

Should have gone to Adams County. Whole process only takes about 4 days if the mail is on time.

 

[ryan_j]

Lancaster county, in and out 45 minutes with permit in hand.

 

[Maestro Pistolero]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ragnar
Pennsylvania requires a resident permit from your home state as a condition of getting a nonresident permit from Pennsylvania for people from the 20 or so states that don't have reciprocity. DC would argue that if your own state hasn't even issued you one, we shouldn't have to either.

They may well argue that but that is a vapid argument. Just because one state fails constitutional muster that doesn't give license to another to fall short. (Unless, of course, the denial is due to a legitimate prohibiting factor in a person's background).

 

[Mr H]

This would seem to say if you're not prohibited, you can carry. Permit or residency not relevant to the ruling. I don't see how DC can get around the rejection of residency being an issue

But IANAL.

I read it the same way.

Scullin is really putting DC's feet to the fire to become part of America.

 

[industrialTerp]

Wooooo!

 

[br3krj]

Lancaster county, in and out 45 minutes with permit in hand.

Thanks - good to know

 

[ryan_j]

Thanks - good to know

Not me of course since I live in NJ and we are a no-issue state but a friend who is a resident of lancaster co told me that was his experience. Might be worth calling them first but there are counties that issue while you wait.

 

[kcbrown]

From Sculin's ruling

...
Furthermore, this injunction prohibits the District from completely banning the carrying of handguns in public for self-defense by otherwise qualified non-residents based solely on the fact that they are not residents of the District.

This would seem to say if you're not prohibited, you can carry. Permit or residency not relevant to the ruling. I don't see how DC can get around the rejection of residency being an issue

You're reading the decision in the way you'd prefer things to go. You can't do that.

You have to read it in the most narrow way possible, because that's what D.C. will do.

The above says that the District can't completely ban carry for self-defense by "otherwise qualified non-residents". Reading it the way D.C. would, that means they can mostly restrict it.

Similarly, "based solely on the fact that they are not residents of the District" can and will be read by D.C. as meaning that they can include that as a qualifier as long as there is any other additional qualifier included. And one such qualifier would be whether or not the individual in question possesses a carry permit from his home state. Other qualifiers might include things like whether or not the individual in question has a security clearance. The sky's the limit in terms of what additional qualifiers D.C. can impose.

Will such machinations fly with the current judge? Certainly not. But the judge is only thing that will keep D.C. in check.

That's why a "may issue" permit scheme is very dangerous. That SCOTUS has refused cert to several cases involving such schemes means that SCOTUS is almost certainly going to refuse to weigh in on the issue in the event D.C. goes with such a scheme, even if the effect is essentially identical to what's in place now, so I fully expect D.C. to craft a completely restrictive "may issue" carry scheme and, thereby, get what they want while avoiding SCOTUS.