41
posted ago by ghost_of_aswartz ago by ghost_of_aswartz +41 / -0

At first glance, it would appear that the 2A had a victory.

Lauren Boebert Has Been Granted Concealed Carry Permit in DC


But that's not the full story.

Guns by non-LEOs and civilians is illegal in DC. There is no reciprocity for concealed carry, so it's illegal also. You have to obtain concealed carry at the WHIM of the Metropolitan Police Department, based on an arbitrary assessment of whether they believe you need it or not. This is unconstitutional and have been repeatedly challenged and essentially the constitution has been overruled, except in Boebert's case. (or MPD bent the knee to her)

The Metropolitan Police Department shall issue a License to Carry a Handgun to a qualified applicant.

A License to Carry a Handgun is required to legally carry a concealed handgun in the District of Columbia. Licenses are issued to qualified applicants on a "shall issue" basis by the Metropolitan Police Department. Licenses are granted to residents and non-residents. Concealed carry licenses issued by other jurisdictions are not valid in D.C. A license to carry is required for possessing a loaded handgun in a vehicle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_the_District_of_Columbia

DC effectively fought back and forth on the constitutionality of this situation, with the court system waging a war of attrition through injunctions that have effectively trapped this issue into a situation whereby MPD and judges get to decide if you have a concealed permit in DC. In other words, they've passed an unconsititutional law, and are unwilling to challenge it, so it stays. This is proof that DC doesn't honor our Constitution.

In response to the ruling, a Restrictive May-Issue concealed carry licensing law was enacted in September 2014. Under the new law, an applicant must show "good reason," to qualify for a concealed carry permit. However, on May 18, 2015, the "good reason" requirement was ruled as likely unconstitutional and a preliminary injunction was issued against D.C. from enforcing that requirement in Wrenn v. District of Columbia.[24] This effectively required the District to grant licenses on a Shall-Issue basis to qualified applicants who have passed a criminal background check and completed the required firearms safety training. Judge Scullin did not issue a stay of his ruling, but the Appeals Court did so on June 12, 2015, effectively leaving the restrictive "good reason" requirement in place while litigation continuesIt was later ruled that Judge Scullin, a visiting judge from New York, was outside his jurisdiction because he was only appointed to decide the Palmer case, not the follow-up Wrenn case. The Wrenn case was subsequently reassigned to a new judge who denied the request for a preliminary injunction.

On May 17, 2016, a separate case (Grace v. District of Columbia) was decided by District Court Judge Richard J. Leon. The Court issued a preliminary injunction that the "good reason" requirement was likely to be unconstitutional and enjoined its enforcement. The order said that anyone who met the eligibility requirements for a concealed carry license absent the good reason stipulation cannot be denied the license; the order was not stayed originally, but was subsequently stayed on May 27, 2016.[26][27]

Both the Wrenn and Grace cases were consolidated before the U.S. Court of Appeals in D.C. and oral arguments were held on September 20, 2016. On July 25, 2017, in a 2-1 decision, the court invalidated the "good reason" requirement. The decision was put on hold to allow D.C. to appeal.[28][29][30] D.C. filed its appeal for rehearing en banc on August 24, 2017[31] but its request was denied on September 28, 2017.[32] D.C. declined to appeal to the Supreme Court.[2]

It was later ruled that Judge Scullin, a visiting judge from New York, was outside his jurisdiction because he was only appointed to decide the Palmer case, not the follow-up Wrenn case. The Wrenn case was subsequently reassigned to a new judge who denied the request for a preliminary injunction.

On May 17, 2016, a separate case (Grace v. District of Columbia) was decided by District Court Judge Richard J. Leon. The Court issued a preliminary injunction that the "good reason" requirement was likely to be unconstitutional and enjoined its enforcement. The order said that anyone who met the eligibility requirements for a concealed carry license absent the good reason stipulation cannot be denied the license; the order was not stayed originally, but was subsequently stayed on May 27, 2016.[26][27] Both the Wrenn and Grace cases were consolidated before the U.S. Court of Appeals in D.C. and oral arguments were held on September 20, 2016. On July 25, 2017, in a 2-1 decision, the court invalidated the "good reason" requirement. The decision was put on hold to allow D.C. to appeal.[28][29][30] D.C. filed its appeal for rehearing en banc on August 24, 2017[31] but its request was denied on September 28, 2017.[32] D.C. declined to appeal to the Supreme Court.[2]


SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED

The fact that the MPD has the SOLE authority to issue concealed carry permits for DC and that concealed carry from other states is not reciprocal is simply more evidence that DC is not operating under the Contitution of the United States