http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...an-on-gun-carry-rights-unconstitutional/

Here's the money quote:

Judge Sculin extensively referenced the Supreme Court decisions in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) and McDonald v. Chicago (2010) to concluding �there is no longer any basis on which this court can conclude that the District of Columbia's total ban on the public carrying of ready-to-use handguns outside the home is constitutional under any level of scrutiny.�

The court ordered the city to now allow residents from the District and other states to carry weapon within its boundaries.

Now just get that applied to the rest of the communist states like New Jersey.

Good News for sure.

Gura is a good one.

How far reaching will this ruling be?

I love reading news like this!!

And Communist Mexifornia.

Fat Chance

Pretty UBER.

This is why I never obeyed any gun laws to begin with.



Travis

The 9th circuit (of all courts!) has already put the smackdown on California. Telling them in a ruling recently that they simply CANNOT deny concealed weapons permits AND deny open carry to its citizens" A shall issue permit system or a rollback of open carry laws are thier only options according to that courts written opinion, as I read it and understand it. Others, the talking heads of TV seemed to concur when this came down. About two months ago IIRC.

Not to worry. Dear Leader will just issue an Imperial Order reinstating the law. The Constitution is meaningless to Dear Leader.

L.W.

Wow! That's big. Great to hear.

sounds really great, but what enforcement mechanism does Judge Sculin have?
I am sure that the kenyan, and the entire DOJ will back the District when they refuse to budge.

I would not like to be the first one to test our police by walking down the street with an open carry. They will cover you up with the side walk around here.
As for the concealed carry. I was just in my favorite gun shop today and the manager was explaining some of the rules in San Bernardino county. 60 Hours of a concealed carry law class is required just for starters along with a lengthy time consuming back ground check and trying to explain to them why you deserve one. They will not just give you one just because you want one even if you get past all of the crap they make you go threw.

Those good precedents appear to have started some dominoes falling.

2A is pretty clear, sad that we need a court to interpret our Constitutional Right to carry a firearm. Great news but sad at the same time.

Sad that so many Americans obey un-Constitutional laws. Period.



Travis

Sweet Holy mutha-phuq...

Yes, there will be an appeal and a motion for immediate injunction, but this one HAS to got SCOTUS.

The breadth is only DC, as it is the DC Federal District Court. The appeal will be DC only (DC Court of Appeals), but this ruling and the legal reasoning on which it stands is gigantic.

Friggin' awesome!!

This.

But my gut tells me there is going to be more than a few Americans carrying guns in D.C. before long.

When we won in 7th Chicago decided not to appeal to the Supreme Court. If DC looses at the appeals level, I think it's more likely they will appeal to SCOTUS. Of course, at that point, we still need Kennedy and Roberts to say on board long enough to evened decide to HEAR the appeal. After all, they've been swatting down everything since Mcdonald.

This looks like good news!

So true.

SAF kicks azz again. Where was the NRA on this one? We're they a friend of the court or SAF?

SAF uses our money to defend the 2nd A.

It's best if each organization plays to it's strengths.
Let the NRA campaign for elected officials.
Let the SAF run the court cases.

Unfortunately, these decisions mean nothing as no court has the authority or firepower to enforce it's decisions on governments at any level. The tyrants will carry on as usual.

Probably.

As in their support for Harry Reid in his last election. The NRA has stymied cases cases considered by the SAF due to NRAs lack of support. I'm betting they don't provide SAF with any financial support.

As someone with a Virginia-issued CCW who lives within 10 miles of DC, I hope this decision survives. But until it is commonly accepted, I don't want to be the test case.

I once was driving on I-66 and intended to use VA Route 110 on my way to Alexandria. Due to an accident near the Iwo Jima Memorial on Route 110, the police directed me (and hundreds of other motorists) over the Theodore Roosevelt Bridge (I-66) into DC. I was carrying and drove VERY carefully until I could re-cross into Virginia. I dread what could have happened if I was stopped.

And then do a way with the need to have a CC "permit" that I have to pay to renew every five years......

Have you tried? Do you want one enough to go through the process? It is a pain but is mostly doable. Most who apply get a permit. It is very much unlike L.A. County where you don't even bother applying.

The decision may not mean much. The permit process will likely end up like NYC, San Francisco or Los Angeles. Don't even bother.

I used to pay their fee for carrying ccw until it dawned on me that I was just paying a tax for a privilege the constitution already affords me. In CA, carrying concealed is a misdemeanor while having a sap, brass knuckles or a switchblade is a felony. I'm with Travis on this one for certain.

Always great to hear a news story like this.

Not really good news unless you arrest the police chief who ignored the first rulings and said they will arrest you.

Well THAT is sure good to know! What would a police officer or CHP actually DO if they spotted your firearm down your way? Asphalt sniffin and free steel bracelets? 3 hots and a cot until a judge could see your case? Citation? Cite with a confiscation of the firearm? If no arrest probable, but confiscation likely one could perhaps have a cheap "California Carry" piece for trips down that way. I have heard the term 'throwaway guns" used but there are some decent one's that would not make a guy cry if they got abscounded with by an over zealous and over reaching copster.

The throw away had better be registered to you because if it is not you can look forward to a very long stay in a Cali. facility and Cali keeps the records of hand guns forever.

I'd sure like to see a nationally accepted ccw so I wouldn't need to check each state's law.

So, you're all for LOCAL legislation preventing self expression ( the ordinance banning saggy pants). But against LOCAL legislation preventing the carry of firearms.

a two edged sword. Once the Feds get involved, nothing to stop them from eliminating CCW nationwide in one action. Government gives, and government can take away.
This needs to stay at the individual State level, like so many other issues.

You DON'T want a CCW system, period. Feds have [bleep] CDL's and everything they touch.

What should want is for them to be able to carry anywhere without a stinking permit.

This.

Sweet Louise, looks like a 4th grader typed that. Need more coffee.

Point well taken. Can't have it both ways.

Police already have that. Fortunately they(and groups like the NRA) were smart enough to not hitch that wagon to civilians being able to carry nationwide. No way it will ever happen now since police have no reason to throw their weight in to it.

Yep, kinda doubt SAF would seem as sincere stumping for Romney/McCain like NRA has.

Tim, this is why I like you, we have had disagreements but you at least have the ability to see that hypocrisy is wrong no matter how he tries to spin it

So I have a question. Suppose I lived in DC, and the judge made this ruling, and the next week (or anyway, before any actual laws got changed) I got arrested for carrying a concealed weapon in DC.

How much use of this decision could I make in my defense?

absolutely a great ruling but" the city�s total ban on residents"
the word total will give the scumsuckers wiggle room. even my apolitical wife remarked, "how can a right be licensed ?"
that is truly the question.

I must have missed the guarantee in the US Constitution of the right to walk around town with one's pants down.

Is it not a form of expression?

Yours would have to be an extremely liberal interpretation of the First Amendment, if that's your opinion. You even out-liberal the US Supreme Court, which has not so found. Perhaps if Obama gets another appointment or two, however, your First Amendment interpretation will have a chance in the future.

It's a yes or no question, answer it

Traffic stops are discussed on Calgun.net. Most encounters are no big deal. Very rarely do people get pulled from cars. Most just hand over their card with license and registration. There are even some positive encounters with pro 2A leos that takes some time to just yak about guns in general. Mainly they are just told to leave the weapon where it is.

Yours was a statement in the form of a question. Taking it in context, your statement was, "Walking around town with one's pants down is a form of expression protected by the First Amendment." My response to said statement is provided above. In short, no it is not. Instead, it's merely conduct calculated to offend passersby, and "lacking serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value." (US Supreme Court Ruling in Miller vs California, 1973)

You keep trying to spin it anyway you want. You're a hypocrite. Plain and simple

I can snatch epithets out of thin air and apply them to you as well.

By "Tyrants", you mean Law Enforcement, yes.

By "Tyrants", you mean cops that are willing to break their Oath and disobey a Federal Judge and arrest Law Abiding Citizens, yes.

Without these LEO Tyrants, there would be nothing to fear by obeying the Laws and this judges ruling, yes.

Hypocrisy is the tribute that vice pays to virtue. An absence of hypocrisy is the prevailing characteristic of a culture in marked decline.

How do saggy pants offend you?

And good try with the Miller angle. However there are two other criteria needed to be comsidered legally obscene. Saggy pants don't meet them

No government, on any level, has any business legislating about what kinds of clothes people must or must not wear or how they wear them.

Saggy pants, and a whole host of other inner-city problems, would be taken care of within a generation--probably sooner--if the government would simply quit pumping in free money. The slums would burn, of course, but then the people who wanted to continue eating would need to get jobs, which means that they would learn to pull up their pants.

I agree with you.

This is undeniably true.

I referenced it on principle, since there isn't a Supreme Court case precisely on point. The principle derived is that conduct that offends local standards of decency, and which at the same time lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value, is not protected by the First Amendment as against local ordinances.

We have ourselves another anarchist, it seems.

A: it doesn't meet the sexual standards of Miller.

B: i'm no anarchist. I believe govt has legitimate functions. Telling people how they wear their clothes, what kinds of foods to eat, what to drive, etc. are not part of thise legitimate functions at any level.

While saggy pants may look stupid, it seems a far stretch to classify them as offensive, unless they meet the statutory parameters for indecent exposure

We can derive from the ruling that local decency standards prevail with regard to conduct so long as it lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.

Additionally, the absence of a ruling against said local ordinance that's precisely on point, combined with the current existence of the law, establishes a strong legal presumption that the law is not offensive to the First Amendment. This is particularly the case in light of the argument by derivation that I made in the paragraph above, and in light of the absence of language in the First Amendment appearing on its face to protect offensive conduct from regulation by local ordinance.

This sure has strayed from the OP. I for one, am happy the see the DC court make this decision. I would also like to see a national reciprocity law. I am not in favor of a national CC permit just a law that states if you can legally carry concealed in your home state you can carry in every state.

Agreed.

PS It wasn't me who took the thread a new direction. I was merely responding to gitem's false assertions. Which false assertions, by the way, I wouldn't have even seen apart from Derby Dude quoting him.

Not necessarily although the LEO (retainers) do work for the tyrants. By tyrants I mean those leaders in power who ignore court rulings they don't like and continue business as usual.

As usual you hit the nail on the head. It would create a lot of blood shed but when the blood shed stopped we would have a saner country left.

The original intent of the Bill of Rights up until the 1920's when SCOTUS discovered the doctrine of incorporation was to restrain the power of Congress not the States or local political units. Therefore, under original intent the cities can regulate saggy pants and firearms. Congress on the other hand cannot regulate firearms but could regulate saggy pants although someone surely would claim 1st Amendment rights to wear saggy pants.

The 7th circuit struck down Illinois' ban on CW but allowed them to enforce that unconstitutional law for another year+...
There are various actions currently before the courts to address that issue, but it surely happened...

As far as I'm concerned, every Illinois conviction solely for weapons carry in history should be overturned.
the truly bad guys have other convictions besides CW...

Actually not, since in order to regulate saggy pants, Congress would need to point to where said power was delegated to it in the Constitution. You see, the Federal Government only has those powers delegated to it by enumeration in the Constitution, while the states retained all the powers normally associated with a sovereign, i.e., almost unlimited. The ultimate check on this huge amount of power in the hands of the states, though, was 1) that the states' powers were closer to the people and could thus be more easily restrained by them through the ballot box, and 2) the states would have to compete with one another for population, thus they could only go so far in displeasing any large minority interest groups.

You maybe right but without a specific amendment restraining Congress, Congress could do it and might even pull it off.

But we're talking about original intent.

Congress could mandate veryone wear spandex so it would be harder for people to carry concealed weapons which would help police.

True.

"Order" is one thing - COMPLIANCE may be quite another.. Watch for the a-holes in DC to stonewall, obfuscate, delay, dally, (you name it) and NOTHING will change, probably for decades..

I wonder if the Supreme Court could hold those who are meant to comply in contempt of court, i.e., toss them in jail for failure to act.

Probably not. I would seem the first person to throw in jail for contempt of court would the president.

So far it appears that the Police chief has ordered the Rank and File to comply.

http://alangura.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/07-137-14.pdf

Well, excellent..

But what's the deal re: "registered" handguns?? Why does anyone have to register a handgun? How is THAT legal? (and yes, I know, there are cities/places that somehow 'require' registration - although everyone should totally and completely ignore that BS crap)

The next step on this one (assuming DC really does not appeal - I can't imagine that) is a challenge to the DC handgun and ammunition registration.

Question, would this mean that any convictions, fines, gaol sentences, and criminal records be over-turned and compensated?

No.

Why not...if the original ban that led to such was un-constitutional?

That would make sense and DC can't/won't do that. Anyone subject to a conviction under that statute could and should appeal their conviction, but I'd not hold my breath on having it overturned.

The Court has issued a 90 day stay to allow DC to come with a set of carry laws that meet Constitutional Muster.

Or, to file an appeal.

Expect a local ordinance to prohibit concealed carry in private businesses soon.

Something they have not had to worry about prior to.

=========

Remember you have a jurisdictional time limit to file such an appeal.