Second Amendment

D.C. Circuit Hears Challenges to ‘Good Reason’ Requirement for Carry Permits

Gun rights groups argue that the District of Columbia's restrictions on self-defense outside the home violate the Second Amendment.

|

Pink Pistols

Today a federal appeals court is hearing two challenges to the District of Columbia's severe restrictions on carrying guns outside the home. The District requires that residents seeking a license to carry a gun demonstrate "good reason to fear injury," meaning they have "a special need for self-protection distinguishable from the general community." In separate cases, the Second Amendment Foundation and the LGBTQ gun rights group Pink Pistols argue that the District's rules are inconsistent with the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly dismissed the Second Amendment Foundation's lawsuit last March, while U.S. District Judge Richard Leon granted the Pink Pistols' request for a preliminary injunction in May. Now the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit has to decide which judge was right.

Even assuming that "the Second Amendment protects a right to carry arms publicly in the District of Columbia," Kollar-Kotelly said, the D.C. regulations meet the requirements of "intermediate scrutiny," meaning they are "substantially related to an important governmental objective." Since the District's goals of "preventing crime and promoting public safety" are clearly important governmental objectives, she said, the only question is whether the District's restrictions on carrying guns in public are substantially related to those goals. Noting that "Defendants have identified what appears to be substantial evidence of connections between public carrying of guns—and associated regulations on public carrying—and impacts on crime and public safety," Kollar-Kotelly concluded that the plaintiffs had failed to show it was likely that they would be able to overcome that evidence.

Leon, by contrast, applied "strict scrutiny" to the District's policy, meaning it could pass constitutional muster only if it was "narrowly tailored" to serve a "compelling government interest." While the District's interest in preventing crime counts as "compelling," he said, it had failed to make the case that its regulations were appropriately narrow. "A court applying strict scrutiny must presume the law is invalid," Leon wrote. "Defendants have failed to meet these criteria, and I am skeptical that they can….Defendants do not even attempt to explain why the District's licensing scheme could not be broader and allow for more responsible, law-abiding citizens to obtain concealed carry permits for their legitimate self-defense needs, while simultaneously protecting public safety." In fact, he said, the burden imposed by the District's regulations "is so substantial that it is tempting, indeed, to agree with plaintiffs that the 'good reason' requirement is per se unconstitutional."

District of Columbia v. Heller, the 2008 decision in which the Supreme Court overturned the District's handgun ban and affirmed the Second Amendment right to armed self-defense in the home, did not address armed self-defense in other settings. Nor did it specify what level of scrutiny is appropriate for laws that impinge on Second Amendment rights. So far three federal appeals courts have upheld concealed-carry policies similar to the District's, and all of them applied intermediate scrutiny.

In 2012 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit upheld New York's requirement that people seeking permission to carry handguns in public show "proper cause." In 2013 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit upheld a similar New Jersey law, requiring a "justifiable need" for a carry permit, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit upheld a Maryland law demanding a "good and substantial reason." The only appeals court to go the other way is the 7th Circuit, which in 2012 overturned an Illinois law that prohibited most people (aside from police officers, security guards, and a few other exceptions) from carrying ready-to-use guns. The 7th Circuit said "our analysis is not based on degrees of scrutiny, but on Illinois's failure to justify the most restrictive gun law of any of the 50 states."

You might think that when the ability to "bear arms" is subject to bureaucratic whims, it goes to the heart of the freedoms guaranteed by the Second Amendment. But the District argues that its policy does not impinge on Second Amendment rights as they were historically understood, which it claims did not include the right to carry guns in urban areas. Kolar-Kotelly did not address that contention, and Leon rejected it in no uncertain terms, saying "defendants do not cite a single Colonial Era, Founding Era, or nineteenth-century commentator, let alone jurist, espousing an urban/rural divide on the right to carry guns."

Even if the Second Amendment is implicated, the District says, the right to carry a gun for self-defense in a city is so peripheral to the amendment's purpose that strict scrutiny is inappropriate. If the D.C. Circuit agrees, it will probably join the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th circuits in letting law enforcement officials decide who deserves to exercise his Second Amendment rights outside the home. But if the appeals court agrees with Leon that strict scrutiny applies, there will be a clear circuit split that the Supreme Court will be asked to resolve.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they 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 for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

115 responses to “D.C. Circuit Hears Challenges to ‘Good Reason’ Requirement for Carry Permits

  1. In 2012 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit upheld New York’s requirement that people seeking permission to carry handguns in public show “proper cause.”

    The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed if they have proper cause. It’s right there in the penumbra.

    1. Start working at home with Google! It’s by-far the best job I’ve had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this – 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $77 per hour. I work through this link, go to tech tab for work detail,,,,,,,

      ——————>>> http://www.highpay90.com

    2. Start working at home with Google! It’s by-far the best job I’ve had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this – 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $77 per hour. I work through this link, go to tech tab for work detail,,,,.,.,.

      ——————>>> http://www.4cyberworks.com

  2. “defendants do not cite a single Colonial Era, Founding Era, or nineteenth-century commentator, let alone jurist, espousing an urban/rural divide on the right to carry guns.”

    Hm, I wonder what happened in urban areas – particularly in the north – during the early 20th century that might have caused the powers that be to want to disarm the people?

    1. It truly is a mystery.

      *pours a vodka*

      1. At least 100 years ago, they were honest about their motives.

        If today’s pols just came out and said “we have to keep guns out of the hands of black people” this whole issue would go away pretty quickly, I think. In favor of self-defense.

        1. Once upon a time American socialists/progressives were honest about being pro-slavery, not just for blacks but for everyone. Their goals haven’t changed, just their language.

    2. Start working from home! Great job for students. stay-at-home moms or anyone who needs an extra income… You only need a computer and a reliable internet connection.. Make $90 hourly and up to $14000 a month by following link at the bottom and signing up… You can have your first check by the end of this week..Go to the website and click to tech tab and start your work…. this website…. http://goo.gl/C6c5YF

    3. It seems the anti-gun people can make all sorts of claims about gun control and never have to back up their claims with data or evidence,and it gets accepted as “fact” by the courts. The government should have to show good reason(with reasonable proof of effectiveness) to override the Second’s “shall not be infringed” restriction on *them* (not “the people”).

      IOW,the courts are NOT doing their job or duty.

  3. The lower federal courts have been generally hostile to the Second Amendment. They have already rubberstamped as permissible:
    * New York City’s $340 permit fee and one year process to get a permit to keep a handgun in your own home.
    * Discriminatory gun carry permitting in New York, New Jersey, Maryland, California and Hawaii, where only those who are wealthy and connected are allowed to carry a gun outside the home for self-defense.
    * A “safe storage” law in San Francisco that requires homeowners to keep guns on their person or locked up when they are sleeping or in the shower, directly contradicting the Heller ruling.
    * A complete ban on any gun possession by anyone who has a doctor’s prescription for medical marijuana.
    * Bans on firearms based upon cosmetic appearance. This is the most troubling because the bogus legal reasoning behind these bans leaves the door wide open to wide bans on entire classes of firearms, not just the so-called “assault weapons”.

    Expect a Hillary Clinton Supreme Court to uphold all of these laws and more, including enabling the bankruptcy of gun makers by frivolous lawsuit.

  4. I used to believe the merits of these issues mattered, but I’ve come to think of judges as politicians anymore.

    Maybe I was always naive before. Maybe being true to the spirit and letter of the Constitution used to matter to judges more in the past than it does now.

    Incidentally, would they accept it if we needed to show “proper cause” to get a permit to exercise our First Amendment rights?

    Also, according to the Constitution, the framers generally, and the Federalist Papers specifically, why doesn’t “because we might need to overthrow the government” by itself represent “proper cause” for a permit?

    1. Judges at this level are not politicians, but they are government agents who generally uphold the government’s interests at the expense of the ruled.

      Letting SCOTUS judges “interpret” the Constitution is a conflict of interest, since the Constitution purportedly is meant to be a statement of the expansive rights of the citizenry and a limit on the government — even though it was actually an overthrow of the Articles of Confederation.

      1. What I meant by that was that their judgments often seem to be about the particular effect they want their ruling to have on the rest of us.

        From this layman’s eye, it’s often about justifying their preferred outcome more than any other guiding principle, like protecting our Constitutional rights.

        In that sense, they seem to be like politicians. It’s just that politicians are more sensitive to the popularity of positions and don’t necessarily care about rationalizations. These judges seem to care, primarily, about the impact of their decisions–and rationalizing their preferred outcomes in Constitutional terms is a secondary concern.

        1. Both politicians and bureaucrats care more about getting the outcomes they want rather than following the wording of the documents that purportedly limits their powers.

          But bureaucrats don’t have to answer to the public in elections.

          So SCOTUS judges are only politicians to the extent that they must survive one “election” where all the voters are politicians, after which they can and will behave like bureaucrats.

          1. Theoretically, judges should render decisions they don’t like because the Constitution says so.

            I have little doubt that Judge Andrew Napolitano sometimes made decisions to protect the Constitutional rights of people he didn’t like that had outcomes he didn’t care for. Making those calls when the outcome doesn’t suit our preferences is what being a good judge and defending our rights in the Constitution is all about.

            Sometimes rapists go free because the rapist’s attorney has the right to cross examine the victim.

            Sometimes arsonists go free because the police didn’t have a warrant.

            I expect a judge to make those calls in harmony with the Constitution regardless of whether he or she likes the outcome.

            I feel the same way about judges when they consider Filburn vs. Wickard, reviewing the individual mandate of the ACA, or interpreting statutes so that a four inch by four inch by half an inch deep puddle on my development property (some hundred miles from the ocean) constitutes the “navigable waters of the United States).

            Those issues really should be decided in terms of the Constitution rather than a judge merely picking his preferred outcome and rationalizing it with an eye to the Constitution somewhat. . . . just like in the case of a rapist getting to cross examine his accuser or the police searching an arsonist’s home without a warrant.

            1. What you mean like some kind of “rule of law” system? Preposterous.

        2. Like if the referees want the Patriots to win, and call the game accordingly.

      2. Anyone who wants to extract meaning from any text has to interpret it. Probably half of the job of any court is interpreting laws.

        1. Even in civil law countries, the courts have to interpret the laws. It’s just that their latitude in doing so is much narrower.

          The problem isn’t that the courts interpret the laws per se. It’s that there’s no real check on the Supreme Court. Yes, its name means that it is the highest court in the law. It doesn’t mean that it’s the highest authority in the land. The problem is that nobody can really articulate a better way to settle these questions.

          1. highest court in the land*

        2. “shall not be infringed” doesn’t require interpretation, it is as plain as language can be.

        3. But this shows how the “level of scrutiny” is important. Using intermediate, it’s a given that local governments exist to protect the people and desire a peaceful and tranquil society. For point two, the locals come in and say “But guns are scary” and the judge says “OK”.

          They’ve never even discussed the law yet.

    2. They’ve been politicians for quite some time, they are just more blatant about it now. The 3rd circuit in Drake held that prohibiting the bearing of arms did not burden the right to bear arms. It doesn’t get much more blatant than that.

    3. Maybe being true to the spirit and letter of the Constitution used to matter to judges more in the past than it does now.

      Whatever gave you that idea?

    4. Also, according to the Constitution, the framers generally, and the Federalist Papers specifically, why doesn’t “because we might need to overthrow the government” by itself represent “proper cause” for a permit?

      I know the answer but, how does “necessary to the security of a free State” not constitute “proper cause” automatically?

  5. The fucking skid mark is addressing the UN right now. Pure, unadulterated horseshit. Every fucking word he says is diametrically opposed to his actions over the last 8 years.

    1. I heard it was all going to be about rainbows and Gaia.

  6. However this case comes out it will be interesting to see what will happen if it gets to a Supreme Court including two or three Hillary Clinton appointees.

    1. We know what a Hillary SCOTUS will do.

      1. I was trying to sugar coat it.

        1. That sugar is brown… and not at all sweet.

          And why does it smell like shit?

          I think I found a piece of corn.

  7. Entirely bogus. The second amendment does not refer to self defense. It refers to the need for all citizens to be able to form militia units if and when they desire. Which requires all citizens to have and practice with military grade weapons. Deal with it. What distinguishes militia is the ability to refuse to respond to a government call. The founders of the nation did not want a strong armed force that was under the direct control of politicians. They knew that “the people” could best restrain foolish wars and illegal use of force on the citizens by refusing to participate. Militia units choose their own leaders, and choose to respond or not to a call to arms. This is why the national guard and regular military units are not militia. Those men are legally required to follow orders from governors and the president. Remember the sixties? “Suppose they gave a war and nobody came”? That is what the militia is all about. Either repeal the second amendment, or repeal all gun (arms) restrictions. Does anybody need a $340/yr permit to invoke the 5th amendment? The first?

    1. The true purpose of the second amendment is too “extreme” and scary for people to contemplate.

      1. Yes, and America was not supposed to have a standing army. We see how long that ended up lasting. Politicians have been struggling against the people for 200 years to finally get back to centralized power, we’re just at the end game now.

    2. Either repeal the second amendment, or repeal all gun (arms) restrictions.

      Would repealing the Second Amendment really be enough or change anything? The Constitution is a list of powers granted by the people, and the Bill of Rights is a bunch of examples of powers that are not granted by the people.

      Maybe I’m a confused layman, but it seems the above is true when performing a plain-English reading the pre-amble to the Bill of Rights, along with the Ninth and Tenth Amendments.

      So any amendment repealing the Second Amendment, would also need to explicitly grant a new power to overrule the right to keep and bear arms?

      1. IMO,the first ten Amendments are CORE CONCEPTS of America,and cannot be repealed or amended.
        They’re specific restrictions ON GOVERNMENT,not on “the People”. Things the gov’t is NOT supposed to be able to do,period.

  8. “without a good reason” is so vague and so arbitrary, I don’t think the government could win an APA challange against such a standard were it used in another context. Remember, under Chevron the government gets deference in its administrative decisions such that the challenging plaintiff must prove the decision was arbitrary and capricious to prevail. I don’t think “with good reason” even meets that low standard.

    These governments and their enablers in the courts will never respect the 2nd Amendment in any meaningful way unless they are forced to do so.

    1. This isn’t even an administrative matter, it is a fucking constitutional amendment guaranteeing the right to keep and bear arms. Imagine the same type of “reasonable” restrictions being placed on the first amendment, or even on abortion.

      1. We don’t have to imagine it. Cankles ‘ EveryRightisSubjecttoReasonableRestrictions’ will show us the way.

      2. Nobody needs a fully-automatic fetus.

      3. Imagine the same type of “reasonable” restrictions being placed on the first amendment, or even on abortion.

        Don’t really have to imagine in either case.

        1. We don’t? What states require permits and waiting periods for abortions? What states prohibit aborting a fetus or publishing something without showing a compelling justifiable “need”? What states require background checks for these things?

          1. Don’t forget restrictions on the number of abortions you may obtain per month.

          2. Training permits and classes. Go to the sheriff office and request a permit. Show cause. Wait or bribe.
            Live in a city? Good luck, not gonna happen. Especially if you are poor.

          3. OK, maybe not “same type” of restrictions. But there are certainly restrictions on abortions and certain kinds of communications.

            1. Sure. And there should be less for both.

      4. Exactly. that is my point. They are applying a standard so vague and abusive, it couldn’t survive judicial scrutiny if it involved an ordinary administrative matter. And they are applying it to a constitutional right. It is just appalling.

        1. And equally appalling that so many people are just fine with it.

      5. it is a fucking constitutional amendment guaranteeing the right

        Wouldn’t the right exist, even without an amendment?

        1. A guarantee doesn’t create something, it’s a backstop to rely on when you’ve been deprived.

      6. Imagine the same type of “reasonable” restrictions being placed on the first amendment

        Like Hillary when she keeps calling for overturning Citizen’s United?

    2. Technically, Chevron is being refuted by a lower court right now. The USSC might have enough new members that they can safely throw over a 1985 ruling without looking bad.

    3. The “good reason” is so obviously “pals with the mayor” it’s not even funny.

  9. None of these courts offer any explanation why the 2nd amendment gets intermediate scrutiny, while all other deeply rooted fundamental rights receive strict scrutiny. The courts are deserving of the contempt they get from the people.

  10. If this goes, DC will have no choice but to rid itself of all but the special people.

  11. During the lefty kerfluffle over Trump’s (obviously rhetorical) suggestion that Hillary’s SS guards be disarmed, Geraldo Rivera was defending the Left’s konnipshun fit on Fox and Friends. I laughed out loud when one of the hosts led Rivera to come out and say that Hillary’s life is more important than that of mere citizens. He realized his gaffe (i.e. accidentally revealing what lefties really think) and tried to backtrack, but he wasn’t fooling anybody. This attitude is at the heart of the Left’s attitude toward the 2nd Amendment.

      1. For me but not for thee…

    1. This one, right?. That mask didn’t just slip, it got tangled around his ankles.

      1. Yeah, that’s the one.

    2. Charly ‘Wellthatsdifferent’ Rangle agrees.

    3. I do admit that the 2nd is poorly worded. Their intent is pretty clear from the volumes of writings spelling that out but fuckity fuck did they produce a word salad when they officiated it.

      1. It’s nice how the Constitution is nice and concise and elegantly parsimonious. But some parts could certainly be clearer. I like how the NH constitution does the right to bear arms:

        All persons have the right to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves, their families, their property and the state.

        1. I would prefer:

          All persons have the right to keep and bear arms. Period. Now fuck off, slavers.

          That seems clear and unambiguous to me.

          1. I kinda like the very direct wording of the first.

            “Congress shall make no law.” I’d like to work that in there somewhere.

            But really, how can you hope to be much clearer than “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

          2. How about “Take your stinking paws off me you damn dirty ape!”

            We should have that for all the amendments.

        2. Maine: Every citizen has a right to keep and bear arms and this right shall never be questioned.

          1. Yes, but do they follow through on that?

    4. During the lefty kerfluffle over Trump’s (obviously rhetorical) suggestion that Hillary’s SS guards be disarmed, Geraldo Rivera was defending the Left’s konnipshun fit on Fox and Friends.

      If she comes down with pleural effusion from the pneumonia, they might need them to aspirate.

  12. Doesn’t anyone in this country know how to read. Any gun law or regulations created by the Federal Government is and always will be a violation of the 2nd Amendment.

    1. any gun law by any state or federal is in violation. Some say the states have a right but the constitution says states only have rights to create laws where such laws are not addressed in the constitution. the 2nd clearly states what is allowed and it does not make any claims that states can do otherwise like it says about states shall be in charge of elections in their state

      1. Even without the 14th Amendment, most of the Amendments aren’t tailored to only the Federal government. It is fairly obvious that, with the exception of the First Amendment, the rules are meant to apply to the States, as well as the feds. Hell, the 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th Amendments would have been practically worthless if they didn’t apply to the States from day one, since the feds weren’t meant to be involved in most criminal or civil cases.

        1. The amendments you cite contain prohibitions on government. Since the tenth mentions “prohibited by it to the states”, then those prohibitions do apply to the states and are consistent with the states having to abide by them. It is the same for the 2A – a state may not prohibit the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

    2. The tenth amendment states that “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
      The 2A is not, like the first, a restriction on Congress making laws. It is un-restricted – meaning its prohibition is upon the States, as well. Thus, even the states, or the people, do not reserve the ability to make laws that infringe on the right.
      Why is this, plain language, so hard to understand?

    3. laws restricting gun ownership and carriage are unconstitutional,but gun laws restricting or prohibiting certain USES (misuses) are not.
      Self-defense is not one of those uses.

  13. Facebook gives you a great opportunity to earn 98652$ at your home.If you are some intelligent you makemany more Dollars.I am also earning many more, my relatives wondered to see how i settle my Life in few days thank GOD to you for this…You can also make cash i never tell alie you should check this I am sure you shocked to see this amazing offer…I’m Loving it!!!!
    ????????> http://www.factoryofincome.com

  14. Facebook gives you a great opportunity to earn 98652$ at your home.If you are some intelligent you makemany more Dollars.I am also earning many more, my relatives wondered to see how i settle my Life in few days thank GOD to you for this…You can also make cash i never tell alie you should check this I am sure you shocked to see this amazing offer…I’m Loving it!!!!
    ????????> http://www.factoryofincome.com

  15. Now the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit has to decide which judge was right.

    And the wrong judge is then fired and disbarred, right? RIGHT?!

    1. We should bring back tarring and feathering.

      1. Or scaphism.

        1. Well that escalated quickly.

        2. At least the pillory.

      2. Firing squad.

  16. But remember, you tea party thugs, that any support for voter ID is too much to ask of people to exercise I right.

    I wish my conceal carry permit from Vermont transferred.

    1. I’m slightly heartened that there are now several states with zero permitting requirements. Unthinkable 20 years ago.

        1. That’s nice. What states are the most recent

          1. The latest one I heard about is Missouri.

            1. The NYT freakout and ensuing panic on facebook over that was amusing

        2. Some are counting 12. Whether it’s 11 or 12, what the MSM is very carefully not realizing is that states with unrestricted carry now outnumber the 8 “discretionary” might-issue states.

  17. We should institute a “good reason” requirement to vote. With me presiding over what defines a good reason.

    1. Ownership of property would be a great start.

      1. Land? Idk. I’m not old enough to have land yet. I should still have a gun.

      2. Honorable US military service. (that would exclude Traitor John Kerry…)

    2. Don’t forget the mandatory training in civics and logic!

      1. Oooh! Patriarchy!

        I like it.

  18. Perhaps most importantly, some dangers are the cost of freedom.

    What fucking freedom, Jacob? The money I earn is taken away to be spent on things I have no control over. I must ask permission and pay a fee for almost every goddamn thing I do. The State has exploded, debt is off the charts and we are completely ass backwards about the meaning of liberty.

    I will risk the dangers of freedom when there’s actually some to be found. If we were really free, I guarantee you most libertarians would have no problem with immigration from anywhere.

    Oh, and skittles suck.

    1. Whoops, wrong thread.

      *feels shame*

  19. Demanding that I show a reason for exercising a right is an infringement upon that right. The second amendment doesn’t grant my right to self-defense, it acknowledges it as pre-existing, and FORBIDS the government from infringing my right.

    -jcr

  20. You want a good reason? Because Fuck You, That’s Why.

  21. “The District requires that residents seeking a license to carry a gun demonstrate “good reason to fear injury,” meaning they have “a special need for self-protection distinguishable from the general community.””

    So, let’s assume, hypothetically, that a particular community is plagued by crime. Someone goes to the authorities, hat in hand, and asks for permission to carry a gun because of all the crime in the area.

    The fact that there’s so much crime in the area is totes irrelevant unless you can find some *other* factor. (You’re the mayor’s bodyguard?).

    If you just say, “I want to protect myself from all the crime in the community,” they can roll their eyes and say, “oh, sure, if we allow that excuse to have a gun, we’ll have to let everyone in this crime-plagued area to have a gun!”

    1. I suspect that offering that as your “good reason” would not only be rejected, it would also piss them off. You’re basically saying that you don’t trust them to keep the community safe, and the fact that you’re 100% right rubs salt in the wound.

      1. Spot on. I recall some French Prime Minister (Sarkozy ?) saying that having a gun to defend yourself is an insult to the State, saying in effect that the state could not protect you.

        1. Well I guess technically he didn’t say “insult”. I believe this is the quote I remember.

          A quote from French Conservative presidential frontrunner Nicolas Sarkozy on RTL radio, 22 September 2006

          I would like to say one thing, in what is my conception of the Republic, security is the responsibility of the State, I am against militias, I am against the private ownership of firearms, and I’m trying to make you think about that. If you are assaulted by an armed burglar, he’ll use his weapon more effectively than you anyway so you’re risking your life. If the criminal is not armed and you are and you shoot, your life will be ruined, because killing someone over a theft is not in line with the republican values that are mine. The private ownership of firearms is dangerous. I understand your exasperation for having been burglarized two times, I understand the fear that your wife and daughter may have but the answer is in the efficiency of the police and the efficiency of the judiciary process, the answer is not in having guns at home.

          1. Seems to be working out well for the French.

  22. Welp, it’s pretty clear that Heller is well along in the process of being rendered moot.

    How can it be that carrying a gun in Maine requires no permission, NH requires an easy to obtain license, but accidentally crossing into Mass with a gun is a felony. When Heller was decided I had great hope that might change. It’s not gonna.

  23. You are forgetting that these two appeals, Grace and Wrenn, seek concealed carry permits. Concealed carry is not a Second Amendment right.

    You are correct that if either Grace or Wrenn prevails then it will create SCOTUS Rule 10 circuit splits but you are mistaken that the splits will be limited to just three circuits. You are mistaken about the 7th Circuit which explicitly held that Illinois can prohibit concealed carry as per the Heller decision.

    The split will be with every Federal Circuit Court of Appeals, not forgetting splits with state high courts which also count as a Rule 10 split.

    Not a single Federal Circuit Court of Appeals and not a single state high court has held that there is a right to concealed carry under the Second Amendment so yeah, it will be a split if Grace or Wrenn prevails, probably the largest split in the history of the US Supreme Court.

    1. Where states ban open carry,concealed carry is the ONLY way to exercise your Second Amendment RIGHT to bear arms. Like Florida.
      Thus,having to get a permit for carry concealed is a violation of the Second Amendment.
      If one has to get permission from the State to bear arms,then it’s no longer a right,but mere privilege allowed you by the State. And just as easily denied or revoked by an uncaring bureaucrat,without due process.

      The language of the Second is clear; “shall not be infringed”.

  24. Start working at home with Google! It’s by-far the best job I’ve had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this – 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $77 per hour. I work through this link, go to tech tab for work detail,,,,,,,
    ——————>>> http://www.highpay90.com

  25. Good Reason?
    How about my natural right to defend my self.
    How about the Second amendment to the US Constitution.

  26. Color of law;

    Section 242 of Title 18 makes it a crime for a person acting under color of any law to willfully deprive a person of a right or privilege protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States.
    For the purpose of Section 242, acts under “color of law” include acts not only done by federal, state, or local officials within the their lawful authority, but also acts done beyond the bounds of that official’s lawful authority, if the acts are done while the official is purporting to or pretending to act in the performance of his/her official duties. Persons acting under color of law within the meaning of this statute include police officers, prisons guards and other law enforcement officials, as well as judges, care providers in public health facilities, and others who are acting as public officials. It is not necessary that the crime be motivated by animus toward the race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status or national origin of the victim.

    The offense is punishable by a range of imprisonment up to a life term, or the death penalty, depending upon the circumstances of the crime, and the resulting injury, if any.

  27. The gun-rights side has a big disadvantage in these cases. Location.

    You can’t file a court case challenging the “needs” requirement unless you’re in D.C. or one of the eight anti-gun states that have a needs requirement. No such case can be brought in any of the pro-gun shall-issue states like Texas because there is no needs requirement to get a license to carry. No such case can be brought in Vermont, because there is no license required to carry.

    So you end up in D.C., where you get judges who probably grew up in one of the most anti-gun places in the world, who hang around other anti-gun people, and who were appointed or voted into office by anti-gun people.

    How do you think they will rule?

  28. I wish there was more press on proggy media about an LGBT group supporting 2A. We all know 2A supporters are all white straight Christian males who support Trump and hate everyone not white and straight.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.