A recent federal court ruling made it impossible for the District of Columbia to continue its ban on concealed carry firearms. As you’d expect from the political regime that fought to deny residents their natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms, the capital’s burghers are making it as difficult as possible for taxpayers to get a permit. The proposed permitting process is strictly “may issue” – a fancy way of telling aspiring firearms schleppers to FOAD. “Residents of the nation’s capital will be able to get licenses to carry concealed handguns outside the home, but only after they provide a specific reason for needing one, [city council] officials said Wednesday,” wjla.com reports. Specifically . . .
The District is seeking to let the police chief decide whether people have a reason to carry a concealed firearm, and officials said living in a high-crime neighborhood would not be a sufficient reason to obtain a permit. People who’ve received death threats or have been the victims of domestic violence are among those who could be granted permits.
“It has to be personalized. It has to be something specific,” D.C. Attorney General Irvin Nathan said..
You can bet your bottom dollar that anyone seeking permission to protect themselves by force of arms – permission to exercise a Constitutional right – will have to prove this specific death threat to D.C. Attorney General Irvin Nathan’s satisfaction, and fill-put numerous forms in triplicate. Simply saying “He told me he’s going to kill me!” or “There’s a drug dealer in my building” ain’t gonna cut it.
Nor are the D.C. permitting authorities likely to accept a citizen’s word that they’re victims of domestic abuse or face potential domestic abuse. The D.C. gatekeepers will require a police record of past abuse or a restraining order or some such bureaucratic BS. How would that help women who find themselves in the shoes of the Kentucky mother whose son was murdered by a man in a relationship gone wrong, who then killed her as well – without any previous heads-up? It wouldn’t.
The fight to defend and extend Americans’ gun rights won’t be over until ALL the “may issue” states – and the District of Columbia – are forced to switch to shall issue. And not even, then. It won’t be over until all U.S. states convert to Constitutional carry, no permit required, concealed or open. Meanwhile, let’s give Alan Gura the last (first?) word on D.C.’s freshly-minted, morally indefensible permitting process.
Alan Gura, an attorney for plaintiffs in the lawsuit, said the proposal did not comply with the judge’s order.
“In America, the police don’t determine what rights we have good reason to enjoy,” Gura said. “You don’t need a good reason to speak, to worship, to vote or to carry a gun for self-defense.”
Or any other reason save criminal intent, I might add. Anyway, reader Mike Morrison notes other aspects of the restrictions built into the proposed law:
I work about six blocks from the White House. One time the President popped into the office building next door just to say hello. Could I have been chased away by Secret Service? Will my daily life be interrupted by bureaucrats’ travel plans? How important must these dignitaries be to qualify for a buffer zone?
But even worse is the carry prohibition on public transportation. Most DC commuters use the metro or buses to get around the city. When it’s not late, broken, or jam-packed, DC public transport is pretty convenient, if expensive. More expensive though, is driving or taking Uber/taxis. This law would force those who don’t want to brave the worst traffic in the country or can’t afford the cost of a car, to be unarmed.
This twist, combined with all the other limitations on firearms ownership in our nation’s capital, means legal firearms ownership will be a privilege available only to the wealthy.