login
Licensed handgun carry now legal in District of Columbia: Palmer v. DC
-
No new posts
| Other Resources | The Political Joe » Licensed handgun carry now legal in District of Columbia: Palmer v. DC | Rss Feed  |
 2014-07-28 9:39 AM |
 Subject: Licensed handgun carry now legal in District of Columbia: Palmer v. DChttp://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/07/28/... On Saturday afternoon, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia ruled unconstitutional the District’s absolute prohibition on the carrying of handguns outside the home for lawful self-defense, in the case of Palmer v. District of Columbia. The District Court did not issue a stay, but the D.C. Attorney General’s Office announced on Sunday that it would seek a stay. As reported by the Washington Post, D.C. Metropolitan Police Chief Cathy Lanier has approved an order which allows District residents to carry a handgun IF AND ONLY IF the handgun has been properly registered with the District Police, pursuant to the District’s handgun registration ordinance. What about non-residents? According to the Post article, “Lanier’s instructions to police also said that residents of other jurisdictions without felony records would not be charged under the ban on carrying pistols.” |
| 2014-07-28 11:01 PM in reply to: DanielG |
Pro  15655    | Subject: RE: Licensed handgun carry now legal in District of Columbia: Palmer v. DC Good deal....law abiding citizens should be able to defend themselves as they see fit. |
| 2014-07-29 9:27 AM in reply to: DanielG |
| Subject: RE: Licensed handgun carry now legal in District of Columbia: Palmer v. DC It will be interesting to see how the violent crime stats play out over the next couple of years.
|
| 2014-07-29 9:57 AM in reply to: 0 |
| Subject: RE: Licensed handgun carry now legal in District of Columbia: Palmer v. DC Originally posted by crusevegas It will be interesting to see how the violent crime stats play out over the next couple of years.
My guess is they'll match Maryland's carry law and not issue any permits. The only reason this went to court was they mandated must have a permit then they got rid of the person who actually processed the applications and never replaced the position. That was pretty much a direct parallel to Chicago saying yes you can own a firearm, you just need to register it but they did not order any registration applications so there were none to fill out. AHA! Apparently they went ahead and just deleted the part of the law that even allowed for it: Former D.C. Code § 22-4506 empowered the District of Columbia's police chief to issue licenses to carry handguns to individuals, including to individuals not residing in the District of Columbia. However, it was Defendant District of Columbia's policy for many years not to issue such licenses. On December 16, 2008, the District of Columbia's City Council and Mayor repealed the Police Chief's authority to issue handgun carry licenses. Accordingly, the District of Columbia lacks any mechanism to issue handgun carry licenses to individuals. Edited by DanielG 2014-07-29 10:02 AM |
| 2014-07-29 3:40 PM in reply to: DanielG |
Champion 7821  Brooklyn, NY | Subject: RE: Licensed handgun carry now legal in District of Columbia: Palmer v. DC Originally posted by DanielG Originally posted by crusevegas It will be interesting to see how the violent crime stats play out over the next couple of years.
My guess is they'll match Maryland's carry law and not issue any permits. The only reason this went to court was they mandated must have a permit then they got rid of the person who actually processed the applications and never replaced the position. That was pretty much a direct parallel to Chicago saying yes you can own a firearm, you just need to register it but they did not order any registration applications so there were none to fill out. AHA! Apparently they went ahead and just deleted the part of the law that even allowed for it: Former D.C. Code § 22-4506 empowered the District of Columbia's police chief to issue licenses to carry handguns to individuals, including to individuals not residing in the District of Columbia. However, it was Defendant District of Columbia's policy for many years not to issue such licenses. On December 16, 2008, the District of Columbia's City Council and Mayor repealed the Police Chief's authority to issue handgun carry licenses. Accordingly, the District of Columbia lacks any mechanism to issue handgun carry licenses to individuals. So, are they saying that you need a license to carry a handgun, but that there's no mechanism by which to get a license? |
| 2014-07-29 5:52 PM in reply to: 0 |
| Subject: RE: Licensed handgun carry now legal in District of Columbia: Palmer v. DC Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn Originally posted by DanielG Originally posted by crusevegas It will be interesting to see how the violent crime stats play out over the next couple of years.
My guess is they'll match Maryland's carry law and not issue any permits. The only reason this went to court was they mandated must have a permit then they got rid of the person who actually processed the applications and never replaced the position. That was pretty much a direct parallel to Chicago saying yes you can own a firearm, you just need to register it but they did not order any registration applications so there were none to fill out. AHA! Apparently they went ahead and just deleted the part of the law that even allowed for it: Former D.C. Code § 22-4506 empowered the District of Columbia's police chief to issue licenses to carry handguns to individuals, including to individuals not residing in the District of Columbia. However, it was Defendant District of Columbia's policy for many years not to issue such licenses. On December 16, 2008, the District of Columbia's City Council and Mayor repealed the Police Chief's authority to issue handgun carry licenses. Accordingly, the District of Columbia lacks any mechanism to issue handgun carry licenses to individuals. So, are they saying that you need a license to carry a handgun, but that there's no mechanism by which to get a license? Exactly. Plus the argument against DC is per Heller there is a constitutional right to bear arms outside of the house. That is the finding from this court as well. There's a stay on not enforcing the law now for 90 days so DC can get a process in place. We'll see how the appeals go and what they come up with. (edit) that confused me and I wrote it. DC can enforce the no carry law for 90 days while they get a process in place and so they can appeal. Edited by DanielG 2014-07-29 5:55 PM |
| 2014-07-29 11:13 PM in reply to: DanielG |
Elite 6387 | Subject: RE: Licensed handgun carry now legal in District of Columbia: Palmer v. DC And these run arounds get struck down every single time they do. Hard to even comprehend Government even pulling that crap. |
| 2014-09-10 8:48 PM in reply to: jmk-brooklyn |
Expert 1240 Columbia, MO | Subject: RE: Licensed handgun carry now legal in District of Columbia: Palmer v. DC Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn Yeah its pretty easy to do, for example, the law in Cook County IL, (Chicago) is that you can get a permit if you pass your test at a public gun range in Cook County.....the catch...there are no public gun ranges in Cook County.Originally posted by DanielG So, are they saying that you need a license to carry a handgun, but that there's no mechanism by which to get a license? Originally posted by crusevegas My guess is they'll match Maryland's carry law and not issue any permits. The only reason this went to court was they mandated must have a permit then they got rid of the person who actually processed the applications and never replaced the position. That was pretty much a direct parallel to Chicago saying yes you can own a firearm, you just need to register it but they did not order any registration applications so there were none to fill out. AHA! Apparently they went ahead and just deleted the part of the law that even allowed for it: It will be interesting to see how the violent crime stats play out over the next couple of years.
Former D.C. Code § 22-4506 empowered the District of Columbia's police chief to issue licenses to carry handguns to individuals, including to individuals not residing in the District of Columbia. However, it was Defendant District of Columbia's policy for many years not to issue such licenses. On December 16, 2008, the District of Columbia's City Council and Mayor repealed the Police Chief's authority to issue handgun carry licenses. Accordingly, the District of Columbia lacks any mechanism to issue handgun carry licenses to individuals. |
| 2014-09-15 9:52 AM in reply to: bsjracing |
Master 2946 Centennial, CO | Subject: RE: Licensed handgun carry now legal in District of Columbia: Palmer v. DC Imagine the fervor of an abortion law stating that it is legal at any clinics within xxx county only to find that there are no clinics in xxx county. |
| 2014-09-15 12:08 PM in reply to: velocomp |
Veteran 1019 St. Louis | Subject: RE: Licensed handgun carry now legal in District of Columbia: Palmer v. DC Originally posted by velocomp Imagine the fervor of an abortion law stating that it is legal at any clinics within xxx county only to find that there are no clinics in xxx county. Well, given that abortion is legal in every single county in this country, and there are no abortion clinics located in 87% of the counties in the US, I guess the fervor will be about the level it's at right now. |
| 2014-09-23 8:52 AM in reply to: Bob Loblaw |
| Subject: RE: Licensed handgun carry now legal in District of Columbia: Palmer v. DC Originally posted by Bob Loblaw Originally posted by velocomp Imagine the fervor of an abortion law stating that it is legal at any clinics within xxx county only to find that there are no clinics in xxx county. Well, given that abortion is legal in every single county in this country, and there are no abortion clinics located in 87% of the counties in the US, I guess the fervor will be about the level it's at right now. You're missing what he's saying. No, you cannot go to another county to have the procedure done, you MUST go to XXX county to do it. Then they work it so there are no clinics in that county. That's what they're doing with firearms. |
| 2014-09-23 2:20 PM in reply to: DanielG |
Champion 7821 Brooklyn, NY | Subject: RE: Licensed handgun carry now legal in District of Columbia: Palmer v. DC Originally posted by DanielG Originally posted by Bob Loblaw Originally posted by velocomp Imagine the fervor of an abortion law stating that it is legal at any clinics within xxx county only to find that there are no clinics in xxx county. Well, given that abortion is legal in every single county in this country, and there are no abortion clinics located in 87% of the counties in the US, I guess the fervor will be about the level it's at right now. You're missing what he's saying. No, you cannot go to another county to have the procedure done, you MUST go to XXX county to do it. Then they work it so there are no clinics in that county. That's what they're doing with firearms. No, I think he got it-- I think what he's saying is that whether it's firearms or abortion, restricting a person's access to something to the point where it becomes nearly or entirely impossible to exercise one's legal right to use it is a sleazy political tactic for getting around the inability to pass legislation outlawing something controversial. |
| 2014-09-23 2:39 PM in reply to: 0 |
Veteran 1019 St. Louis | Subject: RE: Licensed handgun carry now legal in District of Columbia: Palmer v. DC Originally posted by DanielG Originally posted by Bob Loblaw You're missing what he's saying. No, you cannot go to another county to have the procedure done, you MUST go to XXX county to do it. Then they work it so there are no clinics in that county. That's what they're doing with firearms. Originally posted by velocomp Imagine the fervor of an abortion law stating that it is legal at any clinics within xxx county only to find that there are no clinics in xxx county. Well, given that abortion is legal in every single county in this country, and there are no abortion clinics located in 87% of the counties in the US, I guess the fervor will be about the level it's at right now. I don't think I'm missing anything. In Cook County you can finish up the concealed carry class at an out of county range. Here's a link to one company located in downtown Chicago, Fidelity Investigative Training Academy, that provides the class (link). Quote from their page "Upon completion of the classroom portion of the course, students will travel to a designated range in the north/western suburbs (determined by date of the class) for the live-fire portion of the course." Even with the old Chicago Firearm Permit laws that are now gone, you could still do this. I didn't bring up the abortion angle, just pointing out that I thinks it's a very poor analogy in this scenario. You can get your concealed carry if you live in Cook County, but only if you're willing to do some traveling. You can get an abortion in Mississippi (for example), but only if you're willing to travel to one of only two providers in the entire state. In either case, if you unable to make it out of town, tough luck. ETA: Both the right and the left are going about it all wrong in their attempts to control/ban abortion and guns, respectively. The left keeps throwing out new laws that fall somewhere between toeing the line and flat out infringing upon the 2A. There's a very simple solution, amend the Constitution to overrule the 2A. But they can't, so they keep trying to push the boundaries to make their liberal constituents happy. The right keeps throwing out new laws that fall somewhere between toeing the line and flat out infringing upon the Supreme Court's ruling in Roe v Wade. There's a very simple solution, amend the Constitution to overrule Roe v Wade. But they can't, so they keep trying to push the boundaries to make their conservative constituents happy. And then both sides whine about the other side doing it. Hilarious. Edited by Bob Loblaw 2014-09-23 2:47 PM |
| Other Resources | The Political Joe » Licensed handgun carry now legal in District of Columbia: Palmer v. DC | Rss Feed |
|
|
|
| |||
|
|
View profile
Add to friends
Go to training log
Go to race log
Send a message
View album
CONNECT WITH FACEBOOK