We just won Palmer at the DC District Court!

Holy schmoley, Batman! That's an awful law.

Here are some of the provisions:

"The Chief may limit the geographic area, circumstances, or times of the day, week, month, or year in which the license is effective."

The pistol to carry must be the one registered in the District. The pistol must be concealed.

Applicants must demonstrate "a good reason to fear injury" and "a special need for self-protection distinguishable from the general community." Applicants must provide evidence of this fear.

Applicants have to complete a course certified by the Chief that includes at least 16 hours of training. The course must cover "situational awareness, conflict management, and moral and ethical decisions on the use of deadly force." How much will something like that cost, and how many instructors are there in the District to conduct it?

The license is good for two years.

Licensees may not carry in the following places:
  • Any building owned or under the control of the District
  • Any public transportation vehicle, including the Metrorail transit system
  • Any public gathering or special event conducted on property open to the public that requires issuance of a permit from the District or federal government
  • Within 1,000 feet, or other lesser distance designated by the Chief or his or her designee, when a dignitary or high ranking official of the United States or a state, local, or foreign government is under the protection of the Metropolitan Police Department, or other law enforcement agency
  • Any prohibited circumstance that the Chief determines by rule

The first four provisions cover pretty much every part of the District. Just for good measure, the Chief has the ability to extend the prohibition by fiat.
 
Whew.

Every bad idea there is, plus anointing the Chief as Lord and Master of all citizens, Seer of the Future.

I don't think Scullion is going to buy this bag of night soil.

I could be wrong.
 
Oh, for pity's sake, that law's ridiculous!

An applicant must have 16 hours of training to get a permit and 4 hours of training to renew. Such training must include "firearms nomenclature?!?" How esoteric are they gonna make that section? :eek:

Anyone traveling with a CC-er is required to comply with a patdown? :eek:

A roving, 1000-ft (or less) "dignitary bubble" where cc is prohibited? :eek:

Private residences are presumed to prohibit CC? :eek:
 
Applicants must demonstrate "a good reason to fear injury" and "a special need
for self-protection distinguishable from the general community." Applicants must
provide evidence of this fear.
When I read that two days ago, I knew thing was DOA.
The rest of the claptrap is just eyewash after that.
 
So, does the general community of DC not have a need for self-protection?

...and here I thought the right to life was inalienable!

That's the exact kind of ridiculous proposal I'd expect from DC. "What, we can't ban it?!...Make it as stupid, difficult, expensive, intrusive, and insulting as possible!" (That's how one "respects the 2nd Amendment" in our nation's capital, apparently.)
 
...the right of the people who have a special need for self-protection distinguishable from the general community to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

There we go. Fixed it.
 
Oh, for pity's sake, that law's ridiculous!

I thought Cook County's, where Chicago is located, proposed legislation was ridiculous.

DC wants to be able to prohibit how much ammo and what ammo one can carry. They also want to specify what holsters one can use.

They will probably say all holsters are prohibited and any handgun must be enclosed in a case.

I love all the bits where the chief of police can do whatever the hell he/she wants.
 
Applicants must demonstrate "a good reason to fear injury" and "a special need for self-protection distinguishable from the general community." Applicants must provide evidence of this fear.

And there is the hook - if you are in such fear for your life, you may need mental health screening. Instead of a permit, you get committed.
 
Fortunately for us it's usually their overreach which is their undoing. The walls are closing in on the district now. They are in a very weak position politically in my opinion. With the tide quite likely about to turn in the Senate elections, they ought to see the writing on the wall. (But they won't)

If they screw around long enough, a majority control of both houses could make entirely removing their right to regulate guns in the district not impossible.

Striking the new regulation is likely going to take a new lawsuit, but they have handed us we ample, egregiously novel threats to liberty as highlighted here by Spats McGee and Tom Servo:
http://thefiringline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5920651&postcount=141 AND here: http://thefiringline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5920759&postcount=144
 
Judges can't get any where near dictating law . . . they can merely uphold it or strike it once it is written, and only when a case is properly before them and plaintiffs have standing. Since Palmer had nothing to do with may issue, or for that matter, any of the new overreaching regulations by the City counsel, there is a limit to what the judge can do with his remaining jurisdiction in this case.
 
Last edited:
True, judges can't dictate law but once DC's final version is submitted Judge Scullin can say that it fails to satisfy the injunction. They will then have the options of rewriting it, appealing to the circuit, or totally ignoring the judge and keeping the may issue law.

The problem with the latter for DC is that Congress has the last say whether or not DC's laws become final. How will their supporters in Congress react to their may issue law that is contrary the judge's injunction? This judge is pro-2A, has achieved his seniority, and is about to retire so he has nothing to lose. Will he just sit back and let DC's may issue law go by without a response?
 
This was predictable.

Pyrrhus would know this "win."

Bloomberg's bodyguards, DC council members, and a handful of pals get to carry.
 
Back
Top