Good DC Residents May Again (Legally) Carry Guns to Defend Themselves Against Criminals Who Always Did

After a long hiatus in respect for individual self-defense rights, Washington, D.C. will, once again, accept applications for permits to carry concealed pistols. This should put the honest residents of that unpleasant burg—at least, the ones who feared the old law enough to abide by it despite the capital city's impressive crime rate—on a more even footing with the two-legged predators who never gave a shit about the ban on concealed carry.
The statement from Police Chief Cathy L. Lanier is suitably grudging, coming as it does from from the chief enforcer in the federal government's nest:
Mayor Vincent C. Gray has signed emergency legislation, the "License to Carry a Pistol Emergency Amendment Act of 2014," passed by the Council of the District of Columbia in response to the ruling by the U.S. District Court in the case of Palmer v. District of Columbia. This law maintains our commitment to keeping guns out of the wrong hands and ensures the safety of all within the District of Columbia, while fully respecting the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
The law cures the alleged constitutional flaws in the District's licensing laws found by a U.S. District Court in the Palmer case. The summary judgment ruling in that case was stayed until October 22, 2014, giving District officials time to issue regulations authorized by this legislation. Once these are issued, members of the public who meet the statute's criteria will be able to apply for a license to carry a pistol in the District.
In the meantime, except as authorized for law enforcement, carrying a gun in public remains a criminal offense, and anyone found doing so will be subject to arrest.
The new regulations can be expected to be restrictive, burdensome, and applied with the sort of non-enthusiasm bureaucrats always bring to the job when forced to loosen, however slightly, the yoke on little people. They'll be a far cry from the generally red tape-free "Vermont Carry" that prevails in several states that don't require permits to put the means of self-defense in your pocket.
If the regulations are prohibitively burdensome, D.C. residents who consider the risk of going unarmed unacceptable will no doubt continue to practice what I like to call "East Village Carry" (after a neighborhood I prowled for several years). They'll put guns in their pockets anyway, gambling that the benefit outweighs the risk of being caught in violation of the city's laws.
Because that's what the predators have always done, no matter what the law says.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
"accepting applications"
not same as
"issuing permits"
Let's see some results.
This. Is DC a "shall issue" or a "may issue" jurisdiction? Because "may issue" is de facto prohibition.
Yup.
Actually, I think the upshot of Heller is that any jurisdiction that requires a permit is a "shall issue" jurisdiction.
Tell that to NJ cops. Many parole officers and former prosecutors have been denied permits - forget it for civilian scum like me.
Let's see some results.
What?! A new database of registered weapon owners isn't enough for you?!
...members of the public who meet the statute's criteria will be able to apply for a license to carry a pistol in the District.
Applicants who wish to hold their breath for the review period may feel free to do so. Loss of consciousness will make the interminable wait more interesting.
Safe to assume no recipro, I guess?
And that's what really matters, actually, given that during non-holiday weekdays the population of DC is mostly from MD and VA.
Good luck, DC-tonians. I believe you'll need it.
All applications shall be placed in the circular file for processing.
No, they will just be denied because the applicant didn't show sufficient need to carry.
The job of the police is to protect the public. The public is everyone except you. Therefore you cannot have a permit because you may be a danger to the public.
This is what progs really believe.
All applications shall be placed in the circular file for processing.
Not all. Hunter Biden's app will sail right through.
I like the cut of your jib Brooksie.
OT: new Ebola patsy is gore's former chief of staff. Maybe he can borrow his ex boss's hockey stick chart.
His supervision of the allocation of funds in the stimulus act -- at the time and [sic] incredible and complicated government undertaking -- is respected in Washington.
*** facepalm ***
And to think, there are probably 1,000s of fools toiling away to earn their Doctorate in Health Administration.
Haha. Its funny because its true.
"East Village Carry"
A very white and well-off component probably allows this to work?
I combine the East Village Carry with the Irish Goodbye.
How about with a Glaswegian Kiss?
/menacing Scot
It didn't help Bernhard Goetz any. Being white is not some kind of magical get-out-of-jail-free card for gun crimes in NYC.
Because "may issue" is de facto prohibition.
I don't think Cathy Lanier is likely to get writer's cramp from signing permit approvals.
Because "may issue" is de facto prohibition.
I don't think Cathy Lanier is likely to get writer's cramp from signing permit approvals.
Walther did come out with a ~$300 PP-something recently. Sounds perfect for the low-income CCW niche of DC.
^presupposes a lot
It's good to see Obama is nakedly demonstrating that his real concern is the "optics" of Ebola. Most people would have enough self awareness to shy away from putting a career political staff knob polisher in the czar's throne, but not Obama.
"On Thursday, Lanier offered her most detailed account of how she plans to evaluate gun owners' applications.
Living in a crime-plagued area of the city, for example, where killings have occurred or drug sales are common would not be sufficient cause for a concealed-carry permit, Lanier said. Owning a home that has been burglarized, even multiple times, also would not necessarily give an applicant standing, she said, because the District has been required since 2008 to allow residents to keep guns in their homes for self-defense.
Rather, Lanier said, for concealed-carry permits, "we're talking about a specific threat to you. If there is a threat, you have been threatened, you are the victim of stalking, you are the victim of domestic violence," she said."
So with the lightning speed of bureaucracy, they'll be issuing CC permits only to dead victims.
http://twitchy.com/2014/10/17/.....caine-use/
J.R. Salzman @jrsalzman
Follow
According to the CNN report, Biden's son made it a whole month before testing positive for cocaine. A MONTH.
Behold the IRON WILL of our nobility.
Mayor Vincent C. Gray has signed emergency legislation, the "License to Carry a Pistol Emergency Amendment Act of 2014," passed by the Council of the District of Columbia in response to the ruling by the U.S. District Court in the case of Palmer v. District of Columbia.
They held a gun to his head!
In other completely UNRELATED news, governor Patrick signs new gun law that allows adults 18 years of age and older to buy Pepper spray without having to obtain a gun license first (or "gun identification card", whatever.)
Which makes you think - why would Massachusetts require its citizens to obtain a gun identification card just to buy Pepper spray in the first place?
http://wwlp.com/2014/09/26/new.....per-spray/
Given that the District has not actually complied with the ruling, they seem very determined to spend several million more in legal expenses.
Why not? It's only taxpayer's money. The powers don't have skin in the game.
There is no "keeping guns out of the wrong hands" if we chose to allow certain people to have guns.
Criminals will always get guns as they are so avaiable. The current gun policies of looking at backgrounds and registering guns is silly. Criminals do neither when obtaining a gun.
I, personally, don't deal with guns and don't have to deal with guns.
I'd just rather move to a place where it would not be necessary.
Where I live, they are not necessary.
Where I live, they are not necessary because so many people have them.
As I wrote on the 24/7 side that no one sill ever see, the ONLY reason to apply is to gain standing for the next round of lawsuits.
In another year or so, we'll find out from the Court just how poorly the City Council performed in "correcting the flaws" that the Courts found in DC's previous stranglehold on the ability of people within the District to avail themselves of personal protection.
"Capitol City" is not a friendly place for those who are able to think, and act, for themselves.