VICTORY IN PALMER!!!!

[fightinbluhen51]

disappointing, but not at all surprising. Now that even DC has conceded there is a right outside the home, SCT cannot take a may-issue case fast enough.

That's the garbage thing, SCOTUS could have weighted in, but their apprehension to exercise their clear power in cases that are behind obvious to mere "serfs" is mind numbing.

 

[danb]

That's the garbage thing, SCOTUS could have weighted in, but their apprehension to exercise their clear power in cases that are behind obvious to mere "serfs" is mind numbing.

I thought that too until I read the Peruta opinion. I am glad they waited, it was worth waiting for. Now that we are past it of course, they need to lock it in.

 

[CypherPunk]

Proposed legislation: http://www.dccouncil.us/files/user_... a Pistol Temporary Amendment Act of 2014.pdf



Can you say minefield?

This link is dead or at least not working on iPhone ios8 using Tapatalk and safari.

Can someone copy pasta?

 

[krucam]

This link is dead or at least not working on iPhone ios8 using Tapatalk and safari.

Can someone copy pasta?

Works fine on my Ipad. Do you have Adobe PDF reader installed?

 

[CypherPunk]

Works fine on my Ipad. Do you have Adobe PDF reader installed?

I never needed to install Adobe Acrobat ony iphone to read PDF before, but I'll give it a try.

Here is what I get when I launch the link:

Invalid URL: http://www.dccouncil.us/files/user_uploads/event_testimony/License to Carry a Pistol Temporary Amendment Act of 2014.pdf

We should always grab a copy anyway in case the pull it or try some shenanigans.

 

[DC-W]

http://www.dccouncil.us/files/user_... a Pistol Emergency Amendment Act of 2014.pdf

There it is:

(c) Section 6 (D.C. Official Code § 22-4506) is revived as of the effective date of the
79 “Carrying a Pistol with a License Emergency Amendment Act of 2014,” and is amended to read
80 as follows:
81 “Sec. 6. Issuance of a license to carry a pistol.
82 “(a) The Chief may, upon the application of any person having a bona fide residence or
83 place of business within the District of Columbia, or of any person having a bona fide residence
84 or place of business within the United States and a license to carry a pistol concealed upon his or
85 her person issued by the lawful authorities of any State or subdivision of the United States, issue
86 a license to such person to carry a pistol concealed upon his or her person within the District of
87 Columbia for not more than 2 years from the date of issue, if it appears that the applicant has
88 good reason to fear injury to his or her person or property or has any other proper reason for
89 carrying a pistol, and that he or she is a suitable person to be so licensed.

 

[Haides]

(e) Good reason to fear injury to your person or property:

____Being in D.C._______

 

[swinokur]

attached

 

[Brooklyn]

Or any other proper reason?

The suitable person clause will be interesting.. if scotus is waiting for a district case .. they may get one...

 

[john_bud]

Fyi- original link works on android device.


Interesting how far they go to strip fundamental rights away in the name of safety and how utterly blatently that goal is missed. And how blatantly courts avoid looking at actual data showing results of the laws to further totalitarian take over.

 

[CypherPunk]

83 place of business within the District of Columbia, or of any person more equal than others. All David Gregory's are comrades.

 

[danb]

http://www.dccouncil.us/files/user_... a Pistol Emergency Amendment Act of 2014.pdf

There it is:

the statute codifies "good reason" (line 406):

406 section 6 of this act:
“(A) Demonstrated a good reason to fear injury to his or her person, which shall at a minimum require a showing of a special need for self-protection distinguishable from the general community as supported by evidence of specific threats or previous attacks which demonstrate a special danger to the applicant’s life;

“(B) Demonstrated any other proper reason for carrying a concealed pistol, which shall at a minimum include types of employment that require the handling of cash or other valuable objects that may be transported upon the person of the applicant; and

 

[Brooklyn]

83 place of business within the District of Columbia, or of any person more equal than others. All David Gregory's are comrades.

Or other states.. they are going to try the Maryland black code, bottom line its another challenge to may issue ... this time from the district..

Its about a clear an attempt to ensure a facial challenge I have ever seen. I hope they codiy it just as they plan. No wiggle room...

 

[Applehd]

the statute codifies "good reason" (line 406):

Maybe you are seeing something here that I am missing... but from I read, it is no different than "good and substantial" here in Md... and I would wager that it would be interpreted the same by the courts... ...but what do I know?

 

[danb]

Maybe you are seeing something here that I am missing... but from I read, it is no different than "good and substantial" here in Md... and I would wager that it would be interpreted the same by the courts... ...but what do I know?

Yep, same as MD. Which courts? They are split. Eventually we will hear from the one court that counts.

 

[Decoy]

They are clearly circumventing the intent of the court ruling. Just like they did in Heller.

 

[Brooklyn]

Maybe you are seeing something here that I am missing... but from I read, it is no different than "good and substantial" here in Md... and I would wager that it would be interpreted the same by the courts... ...but what do I know?

Bydefining it in detail they make attack on its face easier. Md avoids a clear defintion for that reason. Its also another circuit..

Liberals don't learn to good. If they were smart and came up with something new I would worry.

To liberals not stuck not challenged and upheld are the same. That's good for us.

 

[pilotguy]

Based on prior postings it appears that the judge might not be able to directly compel the DC legislature to pass shall issue but I see no reason he could not put the injunction back in place until such time as he was satisfied that the new law complied with his Palmer-based ruling. So they can pass may issue, but then DC becomes constitutional carry again.

 

[danb]

Bydefining it in detail they make attack on its face easier. Md avoids a clear defintion for that reason. Its also another circuit..

Liberals don't learn to good. If they were smart and came up with something new I would worry.

To liberals not stuck not challenged and upheld are the same. That's good for us.

I was thinking the same. I held out some hope that they would not codify G&S, that would have been the smart play.

 

[Inigoes]

DC wants to continue the same racist Jim Crowe laws to keep minorities from owning/possessing a firearm for self defense or protecting their families!