Politicsgunsccwwashingtondc

Wed Sep 24, 2014, 10:42 AM

Washington D.C. approves strict ‘May-Issue’ legislation by a unanimous vote

http://www.guns.com/2014/09/24/washington-d-c-approves-strict-may-issue-legislation-by-a-unanimous-vote/

The District of Columbia passed one of the strictest concealed carry laws in the nation Tuesday, calling for 16 hours of training, “good reason” be proven for consideration, and a host of other restrictions. The measure, outlined in a 21-page bill, comes in an effort to comply with a federal court order that struck down the District of Columbia’s ban on handguns outside of the home. The 90-day stay agreed to by U.S. District Judge Frederick J. Scullin Jr. is set to run out Oct. 22.

“While I would prefer that we did not have to change our laws to allow the carrying of concealed weapons by civilians, this bill ensures that we will be able to meet the requirements of the Constitution while maintaining the maximum amount of safeguards possible to protect our residents, visitors, workers and public-safety officers,” D.C. Democratic Mayor Vincent Gray said in a statement Tuesday. The bill, dubbed the License to Carry a Pistol Temporary Amendment Act of 2014, passed the 13-member D.C. City Council by unanimous vote. Modeled after restrictive “may-issue” laws in effect in Maryland and New Jersey, an applicant for a concealed carry permit in Washington D.C. would be required to meet the same strict requirements already established to register a firearm in the District.

These include background and fingerprint tests, a firearms safety course followed by an exam, as well as a vision certification. Added to the process would be an interview and a mandated 16-hour training course administered by a firearms instructor certified by the metro police chief. That same chief, currently Cathy Lanier, will have discretion over who may be ultimately issued a concealed carry permit. While “self-defense” or residing in a high-crime area may not be considered sufficient good reason for issuing a permit, such events like carrying large sums of cash, documented death threats, or protective orders could be taken into account.

Overall, applicants will have to supply evidence “showing of a special need for self-protection distinguishable from the general community as supported by evidence of specific threats or previous attacks which demonstrate a special danger to the applicant’s life.” If denied by the chief, applicants could appeal to a five member Concealed Handgun Licensing Review Board for reconsideration. Board membership will consist of a mental health professional and a current or former law enforcement officer appointed by the mayor, a representative from the U.S. Attorney’s Office, a representative appointed by the District’s attorney general, and the Chief Judge of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia or their designee.

(Excerpt, remainder of article at link)

So many restrictions it may as well not exist. A phase comes to mind; something about it being better to be tried by twelve than rather than carried by six...

30 replies, 2147 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 30 replies Author Time Post
Reply Washington D.C. approves strict ‘May-Issue’ legislation by a unanimous vote (Original post)
Juan Rico Sep 2014 OP
SonderWoman Sep 2014 #1
Juan Rico Sep 2014 #2
SonderWoman Sep 2014 #5
Juan Rico Sep 2014 #6
MountainDew Sep 2014 #22
cologeek Sep 2014 #4
Crazy D Sep 2014 #7
kevlar Sep 2014 #9
magdrop Sep 2014 #8
nolens volens Sep 2014 #11
magdrop Sep 2014 #13
Cave Dweller Sep 2014 #17
nolens volens Sep 2014 #20
Cave Dweller Sep 2014 #28
USNRET1988 Sep 2014 #30
grisd3 Sep 2014 #10
Cave Dweller Sep 2014 #16
Duke Lacrosse Sep 2014 #3
TIMETOCHANGE Sep 2014 #12
Duke Lacrosse Sep 2014 #14
TIMETOCHANGE Sep 2014 #15
Duke Lacrosse Sep 2014 #18
TIMETOCHANGE Sep 2014 #19
E32457Z Sep 2014 #29
Virginia Vet Sep 2014 #21
MountainDew Sep 2014 #23
Virginia Vet Sep 2014 #24
MountainDew Sep 2014 #25
Virginia Vet Sep 2014 #26
MountainDew Sep 2014 #27

Response to Juan Rico (Original post)

Wed Sep 24, 2014, 10:45 AM

1. Sounds like a good deal.

These include background and fingerprint tests, a firearms safety course followed by an exam, as well as a vision certification. Added to the process would be an interview and a mandated 16-hour training course administered by a firearms instructor certified by the metro police chief.

Seems like common sense gun laws.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SonderWoman (Reply #1)

Wed Sep 24, 2014, 10:50 AM

2. Is the following part "common sense"?

That same chief, currently Cathy Lanier, will have discretion over who may be ultimately issued a concealed carry permit. While “self-defense” or residing in a high-crime area may not be considered sufficient good reason for issuing a permit, such events like carrying large sums of cash, documented death threats, or protective orders could be taken into account.

Overall, applicants will have to supply evidence “showing of a special need for self-protection distinguishable from the general community as supported by evidence of specific threats or previous attacks which demonstrate a special danger to the applicant’s life.”

For citizens who aren't "special", is there the slightest doubt that their right to armed self-defense will be routinely denied?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Juan Rico (Reply #2)

Wed Sep 24, 2014, 11:09 AM

5. Meh. You guys are always the ones clamoring for states rights.

Deal with it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SonderWoman (Reply #5)

Wed Sep 24, 2014, 11:12 AM

6. Washington DC isn't a state, and Constitutional rights aren't trumped by states rights.

Deal with that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SonderWoman (Reply #5)

Wed Sep 24, 2014, 05:28 PM

22. Meh. When was DC granted statehood? Did I miss something?

 

Lefties and their facts would be funny if it weren't so pathetic.

You crack me up!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SonderWoman (Reply #1)

Wed Sep 24, 2014, 10:52 AM

4. It will be struck down.

The provision “showing of a special need for self-protection distinguishable from the general community as supported by evidence of specific threats or previous attacks which demonstrate a special danger to the applicant’s life.” is clearly in violation of the 2nd Amendment, and the courts ruling.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cologeek (Reply #4)

Wed Sep 24, 2014, 11:13 AM

7. NRA will get another check before this is over

They pulled the same crap in Chicago and lost....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cologeek (Reply #4)

Wed Sep 24, 2014, 12:04 PM

9. Indeed.

In short order.

Silly liberals.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SonderWoman (Reply #1)

Wed Sep 24, 2014, 11:33 AM

8. Agreed.


People should be responsible enough to know and understand the gun laws if they are going to make the claim that they are responsible enough to carry a concealed weapon.

Shaneen Allen should have been required to complete these basic requirements and she probably would have known better before unwittingly committing a couple of felonies.

It's another example of typical Orwellian doublethink. The gun nuts decry the nanny state that would require such training while at the same time they decry a legal system for demanding that people with permits take personal responsibility for their behavior.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to magdrop (Reply #8)

Wed Sep 24, 2014, 12:14 PM

11. why do none of you that are opposed to firearms apply that logic to voting rights?

It's interesting that the exercise of the right to vote is one that you want to see unencumbered but you have no problem with infringing on the constitutional protections afforded to carrying a firearm.

I would argue that I am against the infringement of any of those rights on the premise the government can not be trusted to limit its own power and must be forced to do so by the people.

Creating exceptions based on personal views regarding amendments creates precedence. If intruding on the constitutional protections in the 2nd amendment are acceptable it doesn't take a legislator long to make the jump to restricting the protections afforded the 1st or 4th amendments or the right to vote.

I do not trust the government to ever voluntarily limit its power when it has the chance to infringe upon our personal liberties. Trying to identify hate speech, or probable cause for warrantless searches all stem from the idea that it's okay to limit the protections in the Bill of Rights.

I do not view the government as a benevolent protector, it is my view that our government should always be viewed with suspicion as to motivation and the desire to amass ever more power over its subjects. I do not want to see your voting rights suppressed, or your protections afforded in the 1st and 4th amendments by such horrible legislation as the so-called Patriot Act. Consequently I do not see any benefit to restrictions on the 2nd as to my view that becomes an avenue for restrictions on every amendment which we the people should endeavor to protect from government intrusion.

I am not in favor of free speech for nazis or klansmen but I understand that protecting the speech I hate is as important as protecting the speech I love.

I know I won't change your mind, but I think an honest dialogue allows us to understand each other more efficiently.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolens volens (Reply #11)

Wed Sep 24, 2014, 12:39 PM

13. I agree with just about everything you say.

The right to bear arms means something completely different today than it did back when the Bill of Rights was agreed to. Two major things seem to stand out.

There were no weapons of mass destruction back at that time. Smallpox might have already been weaponized, I'm not really sure, but even if it was I don't think it was considered too deeply while forming the intent of 2nd Amendment.

Also, the way I read it, "bearing arms" has a meaning that is much closer to "presenting arms." That's just my understanding. I don't think the Bill of Rights gives a person a right to carry a concealed weapon. I just don't believe that's what was intended.

So, the two points where I disagree are on the concealed carry permits, which are basically a permit to be dishonest with society, and some method to establish how much firepower is reasonable.

In my view, there must be some restrictions on how people are allowed to arm themselves.

Oh yeah, and I also believe that we are the government, and I don't fear us. On the contrary, I have a lot of faith in "we the people" to get it right eventually. The fascists that are intent on usurping the voice of the people, I don't really trust them at all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolens volens (Reply #11)

Wed Sep 24, 2014, 12:57 PM

17. Please show

where in the constitution there is a right to vote

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cave Dweller (Reply #17)

Wed Sep 24, 2014, 02:07 PM

20. Do you mean the 14th the 15th amendment? or the 19th?

Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolens volens (Reply #20)

Wed Sep 24, 2014, 10:07 PM

28. The amendments

provide equal protection only. They do not establish a right to vote.

The Thirteenth Amendment expunged the stain of slavery from our basic law, but the Constitution has never fulfilled the democratic promise we associate with it. Put simply—and this is surprising to many people—there is no constitutional guarantee of the right to vote. Qualifications to vote in House and Senate elections are decided by each state, and the Supreme Court affirmed in Bush v. Gore that “he individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States.”

another link

Again, no defined [link:http://www.acslaw.org/acsblog/does-the-us-constitution-guarantee-americans-an-affirmative-individual-right-to-vote|right to vote.

There is a whole lot more, but you should get the idea.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolens volens (Reply #20)


Response to SonderWoman (Reply #1)

Wed Sep 24, 2014, 12:10 PM

10. It's ok except for the may-issue part. It needs to be tossed and replaced with shall issue.

If you pass the background check and classroom exams then you should get your permit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SonderWoman (Reply #1)

Wed Sep 24, 2014, 12:55 PM

16. With these new

laws in place, there should be no more hold ups anywhere in the city. What a good job the city council is doing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Juan Rico (Original post)

Wed Sep 24, 2014, 10:51 AM

3. If self-defense isn't a good reason, then there are no good reasons and this will go back to court

In the express lane.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Duke Lacrosse (Reply #3)

Wed Sep 24, 2014, 12:31 PM

12. Should you have the chance look at the Peruta case over in California.

 

The legal opinion is quite excellent.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TIMETOCHANGE (Reply #12)

Wed Sep 24, 2014, 12:47 PM

14. I live in California and have been following the Peruta case closely

In fact I live in San Diego County and voted against Sheriff Bill Gore because of his anti-CCW policies.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Duke Lacrosse (Reply #14)

Wed Sep 24, 2014, 12:52 PM

15. Oh joy, I regularly check in on Calguns.net for updates Peruta.

 

I can't remember the other case that already cited Peruta as precedent though, that was used in Hawaii. Good luck on your CCW rights. I'm sure once your state goes shall-issue it'll see what Illinois has been enjoying.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TIMETOCHANGE (Reply #15)

Wed Sep 24, 2014, 01:00 PM

18. The AG and legislature will hem and haw and stall for as long as they can

The simplest solution would be to repeal the recent bans on open carry of unloaded weapons.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Duke Lacrosse (Reply #18)

Wed Sep 24, 2014, 01:10 PM

19. Oh absolutely, but the anti-gunners wouldn't do that. That would be admitting defeat.

 

Even though it would serve their aims the best given the likelihoods on the horizon. Personally I find unloaded open carry ridiculous though.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TIMETOCHANGE (Reply #12)

Thu Sep 25, 2014, 03:01 AM

29. I was in the courtroom when that case was heard.


Had to bite my cheek to keep from howling at one particularly excruciating display of ignorance by the judge.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Juan Rico (Original post)

Wed Sep 24, 2014, 02:27 PM

21. Eventually the courts will decide. In the meantime, you have legislators ...

passing laws that a vast majority of their constituents are in favor of. What a concept!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Virginia Vet (Reply #21)

Wed Sep 24, 2014, 05:42 PM

23. Would you agree that Idaho, Utah, Wyoming ... should be allowed to ban gay marriage/adoption or

 

abortion? How about the law in California that denied benefits to illegals? That was passed by a majority of their constituents. Same with the ban on gay marriage. I think our system was set up to prevent the "Tyranny of the majority" or mob rule. We are not a true Democracy and that's a good thing in my opinion.

"... you have legislators ... passing laws that a vast majority of their constituents are in favor of. What a concept!"

Take Care!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MountainDew (Reply #23)

Wed Sep 24, 2014, 05:51 PM

24. They did! And the courts are in the process of over-turning them.

Last edited Wed Sep 24, 2014, 06:23 PM - Edit history (1)

Read what I wrote, not what you think I believe.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Virginia Vet (Reply #24)

Wed Sep 24, 2014, 05:55 PM

25. My bad!! nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MountainDew (Reply #25)

Wed Sep 24, 2014, 06:19 PM

26. No ache. I've done it myself more times than I care to remember.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Virginia Vet (Reply #26)

Wed Sep 24, 2014, 06:20 PM

27. Thank you!!

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Politicsgunsccwwashingtondc