MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Parts of D.C.'s Concealed Carry Gun Permit Process Stopped by Federal Judge

Preliminary Injunction Gained by Second Amendment Foundation Against D.C. Requirement to Have "Good Reason" To Exercise Second Amendment Right.

From a Second Amendment Foundation press release from yesterday regarding a great victory for them in the ongoing case of Wrenn v. D.C.:

The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) today won a preliminary injunction against the District of Columbia and Metropolitan Police Chief Cathy Lanier’s enforcement of a requirement to provide a “good reason” when applying for a concealed carry permit.

Judge Frederick J. Scullin ordered that the city is “enjoined from denying handgun carry licenses to applicants who meet the requirements of D.C. Code 22-4506(a) and all other current requirements for the possession and carrying of handguns under District of Columbia law.”

Judge Scullin further wrote in his 23-page opinion that the District’s “good reason/proper reason” requirement “has far more than a ‘de minimis’ effect on [their] rights it completely bars the right from being exercised, at all times and places and in any manner, without exception” and that the requirement “impinges on Plaintiff’s Second Amendment right to bear arms.’

SAF founder Alan Gottlieb said in the release that the court has "thwarted the District’s blatantly obvious effort to discourage the exercise of Second Amendment rights by forcing permit applicants to jump through a series of hoops and then frustrate them by requiring an arbitrary ‘good reason’ for the exercise of a constitutionally-protected civil right.”

I've read the 23-page decision, and it has some interesting elements, including quoting the offensive element of D.C.'s carry permit law, which says the chief of D.C.'s police department (currently Cathy Lanier, also being sued by Wrenn and SAF) may issue a concealed carry permit "if it appears that the applicant has good reason to fear injury to his or her person or property or has any other proper reason for carrying a pistol, and that he or she is a suitable person to be so licensed."

The decision also quotes from some regulations Lanier adopted for herself regarding when she'll issue that permission to have tools to defend yourself in public, including that:

a person shall allege, in writing, serious threats of death or serious bodily harm, any attacks on his or her person, or any theft of property from his or her person. The person shall also allege that the threats are of a nature that the legal possession of a pistol is necessary as a reasonable precaution against the apprehended danger. The person shall provide all evidence of contemporaneous reports to the police of such threats or attacks, and disclose whether or not the applicant has made a sworn complaint to the police or the courts of the District of Columbia concerning any threat or attack. 

"Employment of a type that requires the handling of large amounts of cash or other highly valuable objects that must be transported upon the applicant's person" might also allow you to qualify for Lanier's permission to carry a weapon.

That all seemed a bit excessive a demand for public use of a constitutional right to the plaintiffs, and Judge Scullin agreed. To get a preliminary injunction in that court, the judge said you must meet these criteria, which he believed SAF had met: 

'(1) a substantial likelihood of success on the merits, (2) that it would suffer irreparable injury if the injunction were not granted, (3) that an injunction would not substantially injure other interested parties, and (4) that the public interest would be furthered by the injunction.'

Part of Scullin's belief that the SAF would succeed on the merits includes pointing out that D.C. arguing that a 1857 regulation on public carry proved a "longstanding" quality of the regulation that, under the standards of a previous D.C. gun case, might have given the regulation some presumption of constitutionality.

Scullin points out that old regulation only punished public carriers if there was a legitimate specific "'complaint of any person having reasonable cause to fear an injury or breach of the peace" from the carrier, very different from D.C. current regulation.

Scullin agreed that "intermediate scrutiny" was the proper judicial standard in this case, and found that D.C.'s arguments failed to pass that test of showing they are using a law not broader than necessary to effect a legitimate public purpose:

Defendants argue that the District of Columbia's "good reason"/"proper reason" requirement relates reasonably to its interest in preventing crime and protecting public safety, they have not established that relationship.The fact that an individual may be able to demonstrate a greater need for self-protection, and therefore meets the "good reason"/"proper reason" requirement, does not indicate, in any way,whether that person is less likely to misuse handguns or may be less dangerous....Nor does the District of Columbia's "good reason"/"proper reason" requirement make it less likely that those who meet this requirement will accidently shoot themselves or others or engage in criminal activity than those who cannot meet this requirement.....The fact that a person may have a greater need for self-protection says nothing about how limiting the carrying of handguns to such individuals would result in a reduction of risk to other members of the public or reduce violent crime. 

J.D. Tuccille reported back in October on D.C.'s initial grudging acceptance of concealed carry permit requests of any sort. And the reason they had to start doing that was a previous Second Amendment Foundation victory in Palmer v. D.C., which I reported on back in July.

UPDATE: The initial headline on this piece was misleading and has been changed; it initially lacked the words "Part of" at the beginning

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.

  • Pro Libertate||

    "I have good reason to fear that my civil liberties are being violated and that this fucking government is out of control."

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Case in point, I am forced to express my fear as justification for wanting to enjoy my 2nd Amendment rights.

  • Pro Libertate||

    The government, she sure do want to see us helpless before her, don't she?

  • croaker||

    The cunt impersonating a police chief certainly does.

  • Drake||

    I assume "the Second Amendment" isn't considered a good reason?

  • Pro Libertate||

    Come on, if it were important, it would be first.

  • Rich||

    "First in war, first in peace, and first in the hearts of his countrymen."

  • HeteroPatriarch||

    Then explain why they ignore the First?

  • Pro Libertate||

    It wasn't really first, you know. It was originally third.

  • Libertymike||

    Re criteria for injunctive relief: What about no adequate remedy at law?

  • croaker||

    No cop considers the second amendment a good reason to own guns.

  • ||

    That's a pretty epic smackdown, and in a preliminary injunction at that. Go, SAF.

  • Plàya Manhattan.||

    DC is now ahead of California.

  • From the Tundra||

    I thought there was a similar ruling in CA. Am I hallucinating again?

  • Plàya Manhattan.||

    There was, but no injunction. It changed nothing.

  • From the Tundra||

    Well, it's not like you would ever need to exercise that right in CA, huh?

  • H. Protagonist||

    Yes, but that decision has been on hold since it was issued. The AG, soon-to-be-senator Kamala Harris, is attempting to get standing to appeal since the Sheriff that lost wouldn't appeal, and then at the last minute, some 9th Circuit judge requested an en banc rehearing of the case.

    So, yeah, we "won" over a year ago, but nothing has changed yet.

  • California Right To Carry||

    The Peruta decision is not on hold it has been vacated because a majority of 9th Circuit appellate judges voted to vacate the decision. The request for an en banc hearing has been granted. It will take place on June 16th.

  • Catatafish||

    "The person shall also allege that the threats are of a nature that the legal possession of a pistol is necessary as a reasonable precaution against the apprehended danger."

    Exhibit 1: The government is making me justify the exercise of this right.

  • HeteroPatriarch||

    Exhibit 2: THE LINKS ARE LATE!

  • ||

    Police are armed. I should similarly be armed against any possible threat similarly

  • Ted S.||

    The police are the people, and the people are the police; we simply pay some of them to do the things we cannot ourselves do around the clock.

    Some people need to read about the Peelian principles. (I'm not suggesting you're one of those people.)

  • California Right To Carry||

    The police are not "the people" they are agents of the state and that includes private persons while they are assisting law enforcement in the performance of their duties. That is longstanding law.

    "Police" officers and "police power" of the state are not the same thing. If the people wish to pass a law which forbids police officers from carrying firearms, they can. If the people wish to pass a law prohibiting the state and local government from employing police officers, they can.

    The police power of the state would remain and one of those police powers is to generally prohibit the carrying of concealed weapons but a law prohibiting the carrying of weapons openly would fall outside the scope of the police power available to the state.

  • croaker||

    The police in the USA were not formed around the principles of Sir Robert Peel.

    The police in the USA were formed from the Fugitive Slave Patrols of the pre-Civil War South, and it shows.

  • California Right To Carry||

    The police forces we have today have are a product of the early 20th century. Police officers employed by cities and counties were relatively few, unarmed, and spent much of their time directing traffic.

    Most police officers in the 19th and early 20th century were privately employed. Another factoid is that prior to WWII most arrests were made by private police and most criminal prosecutions were private criminal prosecutions. Today, in most states, the government has the only say in who will be criminally prosecuted. In most states it is impossible to press charges.

  • Slammer||

    Reason didn't get the PM links permit?

  • ||

    Tied up in litigation.

  • ||

    The staff are too busy celebrating this injunction.

  • Almanian!||

    Damned bureaucracy....

  • Plàya Manhattan.||

    Maybe it's Suave's turn, and he's mad at certain commenters.

  • ||

    You think Robby is going to adopt the George Wallace strategy?

  • Almanian!||

    Get shot and not be able to walk?

    That seems kind of extreme....

  • Ted S.||

  • tarran||

    Ar you sure?

    He struck me more as derisively contemptuous than mad.

  • SIV||

    They're waiting for Fist to get back from dialysis.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    That's not funny. You're not allowed to make fun of birth defects.

  • ||

    Sucks to your ass-mar!

  • ||

    It's funny when you're doing it voluntarily.

  • BiMonSciFiCon||

    My theory is Fist gave some sum of money contingent upon getting to post on the links 1 minute early. It's either that or he's a wizard.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    OR HE OWNS A CLOCK.

  • BiMonSciFiCon||

  • croaker||

    I know someone who wishes she owned a cock: The cunt impersonating the DC Chief of Police.

  • Almanian!||

    I'm not saying Fist's a wizard, but,,,,,

    Fist's a wizard.....

    /the dude with all the hair from H2 "Ancient Aliens"

  • RBS||

    I approve of just citing memes instead of actually using them.

  • Almanian!||

    I haz a sad :*(

  • Rich||

    Well, let's kick 'em off: Are You Ready for President Biden?

    "I'm Ridin' With Biden!"

  • Slammer||

    "I'm Ridin' With Biden!"

    So fucking ready LOL

  • Andrew S.||

    President Biden would be awesome. At least we'd be entertained while the country goes down in flames.

  • MJGreen||

    Shotgun!

  • Almanian!||

    What you did there...

  • ||

    In that swet Trans Am!

  • Ted S.||

    They're editing the links.

  • HeteroPatriarch||

    Harumph!!

  • Paul.||

    The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF)

    Who are these guys and where the NRA at?

  • Ted S.||

    The NRA is at a bunch of cocktail parties.

  • Andrew S.||

    Usually ones thrown by police unions, so they can talk about how wonderful cops are.

  • Rich||

    Yep, the NRA is no JPFO.

  • California Right To Carry||

    The JPFO is no longer the JPFO. The SAF took over the JPFO, the latter having been a strong supporter of the Second Amendment Open Carry right. The SAF opposes Open Carry and before you say that isn't true, you can read Alan Gura's briefs in his California concealed carry lawsuit Richards v. Prieto - http://michellawyers.com/gunca.....dsvprieto/

  • John C. Randolph||

    Self defense is a perfectly good reason to carry a concealed weapon, you incompetent quota-filling political hack.

    -jcr

  • Paul.||

    a person shall allege, in writing, serious threats of death or serious bodily harm, any attacks on his or her person, or any theft of property from his or her person.

    You live in DC, how hard can this be?

  • ||

    Well, of course that, but the point is that no justification is needed. "The right of the people...shall not be infringed."

  • Ted S.||

    That's only if they're in the militia.

    (No, I don't really believe that.)

  • Almanian!||

    The militia is just all of us killing, together.

  • Ted S.||

    I thought the milita was a series of tubes.

  • Rich||

    Well, it does say "in writing".

    *** ducks ***

  • Rich||

    OK, a little entertainment while awaiting the links.

    Porn or pop? Ugandan saucy singer on trial for music video

    You decide.

  • ||

    Popporn? Hot buttered...

  • From the Tundra||

  • ||

    I would like to register my extreme disappointment with the delayed, or possibly absent, PM Links.

  • Loki||

    may issue a concealed carry permit "if it appears that the applicant has good reason to fear injury to his or her person or property or has any other proper reason for carrying a pistol, and that he or she is a suitable person to be so licensed."

    Gee, that's not ridiculously vague at all. /sarc

  • KevinP||

    The headline is misleading: D.C.'s Concealed Carry Gun Permit Process Stopped by Federal Judge

    It should read: D.C.'s Concealed Carry Gun Permit 'Good Reason' requirement struck down by Federal Judge

  • Brian Doherty||

    You are correct. If you refresh, should see an accurate headline.

  • Paul.||

    +1 slow clap for mattress girl.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "I use it to open cans of tuna fish when I'm backpacking".

    That's what I'd write.

  • California Right To Carry||

    Concealed carry is of no use to me, I don't carry a purse. Besides, Open Carry is the right guaranteed by the Constitution, concealed carry can be banned.

    http://CaliforniaRightToCarry.org

    "[A] right to carry arms openly: "This is the right guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States, and which is calculated to incite men to a manly and noble defence of themselves, if necessary, and of their country, without any tendency to secret advantages and unmanly assassinations."" District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S. Ct. 2783 (2008) at 2809

  • DaveSs||

    If concealed is all you have available...better to have it IWB and not need it, than sitting in the safe back home if ever you do need it.

    Of course I'm sure you're aware of that, as I'm sure you are also aware that even a full size double stack pistol can be effectively concealed.

    Don't have a problem with OC in the slightest. I've done so myself.

  • Tejicano||

    I wonder if they would accept "because you silly motherfcukers would arrest me if I carry my gun without a permit - isn't that a good enough reason?"

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online