Wrenn PI Granted (DC Shall Issue)

[press1280]

Im on a The Wire kick... I see this being due to Hamsterdam.



Sad quotes from the article :

http://www.npr.org/player/v2/mediaPlayer.html?action=1&t=1&islist=false&id=91934889&m=91934869

This was just after Heller. All the doom and gloom of the naysayers hasn't come true. So why will it all of a sudden be that way if "good cause" is knocked down?

 

[Mr H]

The part that gets me all SMH, is where they fail to understand that the people who are willing to:

Pay money
Go on record
Get printed
Get trained
Bend over
Keep their noses clean
Accept protective responsibility

are not the people they need to be concerned with!!!

 

[MDFF2008]

The part that gets me all SMH, is where they fail to understand that the people who are willing to:

Pay money
Go on record
Get printed
Get trained
Bend over
Keep their noses clean
Accept protective responsibility

are not the people they need to be concerned with!!!

This is what we need to get people to see. Pro 2A needs to do a better job on this.

 

[Drmsparks]

Kojo will be doing his show on this today. Want to share the pro 2a message? call in!!!!!!

Wamu 88.5 noon till 2

 

[Maestro Pistolero]

The founders truly effed up when they came up with such equivocal, ambiguous language for the 2nd amendment, leaving chasms of doubt about it's actual meaning.

 

[supernova00]

The founders truly effed up when they came up with such equivocal, ambiguous language for the 2nd amendment, leaving chasms of doubt about it's actual meaning.

How so? They couldn't have stated "shall not be infringed" any clearer!

 

[swinokur]

I believe the sarcasm emoticon was missing

 

[Schipperke]

The $64,000 Question

Even if a “may issue” law “impinges” on the Second Amendment, it can be balanced against the important government purpose of protecting public safety.

The slippery slope.

 

[DC-W]

Check out this kick ass editorial from the New York Post about how the Wrenn case may effect NYC

http://nypost.com/2015/05/20/dc-loss-for-gun-control-puts-new-york-citys-laws-at-risk/

 

[swinokur]

It's so kick ass he incorrectly identifies the right to own a firearm instead of right to carry.

great journalism right there.

 

[DC-W]

The whole of his editorial references carry.

 

[mdram]

"If Scullin’s judgment were imposed on New York — either by a higher court or Congress — it would render unenforceable the city’s demand that permit applicants show a good reason (usually a clear need for self-defense) before getting approved.

It’s a big deal because the “good reason” hurdle is being used by municipalities to evade the Bill of Rights. What would be the reaction were Americans required to show “good reason” before they were allowed to pray in public?

Or before they were allowed to speak on a street corner? Or before they were allowed to publish or read newspapers? Or, for that matter, to demand to see a search warrant. Or to remain silent when arrested.

All are protected under the Bill of Rights. No questions asked."

i liked this part

 

[swinokur]

The whole of his editorial references carry.

true but accuracy would still help the story, at least to those of us who know the details.

agreed not huge but it did jump out at me but I am more sensitized than the average reader..

 

[DC-W]

He's in the right place. It's not a perfect article, but he's in NY and it's a far cry from the majority of editorials up there.

 

[swinokur]

agreed. just nit picking.

 

[jbrown50]

"If Scullin’s judgment were imposed on New York — either by a higher court or Congress — it would render unenforceable the city’s demand that permit applicants show a good reason (usually a clear need for self-defense) before getting approved.

It’s a big deal because the “good reason” hurdle is being used by municipalities to evade the Bill of Rights. What would be the reaction were Americans required to show “good reason” before they were allowed to pray in public?

Or before they were allowed to speak on a street corner? Or before they were allowed to publish or read newspapers? Or, for that matter, to demand to see a search warrant. Or to remain silent when arrested.

All are protected under the Bill of Rights. No questions asked."

i liked this part

I find it more than just ironic that Judge Scullin is actually a senior judge on the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York. He's currently assigned to DC to help ease the docket congestion here, thanks to SCOTUS Chief Justice John Roberts.

 

[Brooklyn]

I find it more than just ironic that Judge Scullin is actually a senior judge on the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York. He's currently assigned to DC to help ease the docket congestion here, thanks to SCOTUS Chief Justice John Roberts.

Irony...no... by design.. maybe..

Just rember ... as long as there is no hope we are fine..

 

[Brooklyn]

He's in the right place. It's not a perfect article, but he's in NY and it's a far cry from the majority of editorials up there.

The post is right of center..

 

[ryan_j]

It's so kick ass he incorrectly identifies the right to own a firearm instead of right to carry.

great journalism right there.

Maybe so but in NY state and NY city the permit to own is a permit to carry but can have restrictions. It just so happens that they restrict most permits to premises only in the city.

 

[swinokur]

I just think the aricle should be correct. He wasn't referring to NY law, but DC law. Apples and Oranges.

The ruling was about carry, not ownership.