larger-crime-map

Last fall, Washington Free Beacon writer Steve Gutowski applied for a concealed carry pistol license in the District of Columbia. He was skeptical about his chances of being approved, and it turned out that this skepticism was justified; despite spending a bit of time, effort, and $110 on the application, he received a form letter advising that his application has been denied. The reason: “The applicant did not demonstrate a good reason to fear injury to person or property, or other proper reason for a concealed carry license.” Mr. Gutowski apparently had received a rather strange and threatening communication in 2011 in response to an article he wrote on Occupy DC . . .

He reported it on his application, but this was apparently not enough to satisfy the apparachiks who grant permission for denizens of the District to exercise their Second Amendment rights. Granted, the threats were made four years ago, and clearly didn’t concern Mr. Gutowski enough to even report them to the police at the time. That appears to be a factor in evaluating the significance of the threats:

The person shall provide all evidence of contemporaneous reports to the police of such threats or attacks, and disclose whether or not the applicant has made a sworn complaint to the police or the courts of the District of Columbia concerning any threat or attack.

It gets even better, though. The ordinance itself (quoted in the application instructions) directly states: “[t]he fact that a person resides in or is employed in a high crime area shall not by itself establish a good reason to fear injury to person or property for the issuance of a concealed carry license.” So just because you’re statistically more likely to be the victim of the District’s violent crime isn’t enough of a reason to justify carrying a firearm for self-defense, either.

For the curious, an excerpt from the threat received by Mr. Gutowski in 2011 is below.

You’re a dirty, ideologue snitch. You’re a bootlicker; your tongue’s blacker than coal. You’re gonna get it man, oh you wait. I can’t wait to give it to you. I’m gonna give it to you good, you dirty, bootlicking snitch. You’ll get what’s coming to you, if the heart attack doesn’t come first, you oversized olive…. Ah man you’re so gonna get it. I have a poster of you on my wall and every day I fantasize about how you’re gonna get it so bad, you bootlicker, you snitch, you dirty red-coat. Your masters must be very proud, you obama-plant. You closet neo-liberal. You bootlickin, snitchin, 3rd world enslavin, fascist. You’d love to have a couple slaves of your own, wouldn’t ya? You dirty snitch. You’d love to get a taste, be like massa koch or massa soros for a day, wouldn’t ya, you dirty little snitch boy. Oh, you’re gonna get it so bad, we’re comin for ya.

So as far as the District’s bureaucracy is concerned, they’re not concerned. Nothing to see here, move along. You’ll be fine. Next!

35 Responses to Bizarre Threats Not Good Enough Reason to Get a DC Carry Permit

  1. If it’s been four years and the person making that threat hasn’t appeared on the scene yet, then that person either got snuffed himself or herself, forgot all about it, or is making the trip across town by way of circumnavigating the globe…on foot.

    If I’d been the applicant, I wouldn’t have bothered bringing it up at all. The nasty violent crime situation down there in Mordor ought to effin suffice for legal citizens to have CCW without a lot of b.s. in the process.

    But I guess only the Anointed Ones and their Praetorian Guard have that “right.”

    • If that wasn’t good enough, how about a requirement in law (or FOIA request) to publish the equivalent statement of every person whose request WAS approved? Wouldn’t it be revealing to read the application of, say, the mayor’s brother or neighbor, whose applications were approved? In fact, I think that would be appropriate for ALL “may issue” areas.

  2. Florida district court that ruled against OC also said requiring then denying the majority of valid permits is unconstitutional. So I suspect he could appeal the decision and have a legit case.

    • Thanks for the laugh AllAmerican. I wondered about that description also. But the letter was so bizarre that one more odd statement just blended into the mix. Guessing the guy he was talking about was fat and either liked olives or maybe he was Italian. Who can figure out what goes on in the minds of nut cases ?

    • That was my favorite part of the letter. What a weird way to insult somebody.

      Kinda makes me wonder if the letter writer spent too much time listening to Primus’s Frizzle Fry. (Which is great, by the way, but I could see it leading to madness under certain circumstances.)

  3. A threat reporter Steve Gutowski received regarding an article he wrote.

    “Oh, you’re gonna get it so bad, we’re comin for ya.”

    Another satisfied customer…

  4. The guy that wants the permit is being called out by a nut case for being a liberal. And he is applying for a carry permit but the liberal/progressive law on the books won’t let him have one. Ironic but fitting. Not sure why it took him 4 years to get around to applying for the permit though? Procrastination? He must not have felt very threatened.

    • Try to keep up. 🙂 DC just recently, kicking and screaming all the way, was forced to begin accepting applications for concealed carry permits. It’s the joke that would be funny, except it’s not, to see how ridiculous their excuses will be for denying all the applications.

      • Before that decision (which is still being appealed, BTW) DC issued permits ONLY to the well-connected. Now they’re only issuing permits only to the well-connected. See the difference a court ruling makes to the DC Central Committee and PD?

  5. Because criminals tend to give advanced warning when they plan to attack……

    One day, these tyrants will be accountable.

  6. Taxation without rep…oh wait that’s another crappy fact about DC. Personally I would move-and I live in Illinois. I’ve only got threats from bill collectors…my ex just says evil stuff about me Ralph.

  7. DC will eventually have to issue permits. Their actions clearly infringe on lawful people. I guess they want people to carry rifles around? I think lawsuits have been brought already to force them to issue. SAF?

    • If memory serves, SAF has already filed a motion to have DC held in contempt of court over this statute, that is much too restrictive to satisfy the court’s demands.

  8. It’s no wonder why a lot of DC residents don’t even try to apply for a CCW. It’s easier to just carry without permission than to go through the BS of applying for the damn thing.

    • I know that feeling, I ignored the CHL in TX for 5 years before finally taking the family for a licensing day. Part because “who needs it, I’ve been CCing for 30 years?”, and part because I didn’t trust that it was not some manner of trick until it had been in effect for 5 years. Now we’ve been licensed for over 15 years and the laws keep getting less restrictive, rather than more, as original opponents run out of objections which never happened. “Shall issue” works good, should be everywhere, what are they afraid of?

  9. The District of Columbia is the power base of America. It shows its arrogance and disdain for the constitution.

    No wonder the upper eastern seaboard stares thumb their noses at it, too.

    When DC is broken, finally, reigned in by the constitution, by god, will these other states be too!

    Molon labe

  10. Chief Cathy Lanier shouldn’t be allowed a gun nor a security detail. She is the bitch that is in charge of denying people.

  11. Convenient that you only report such a threat as dangerous when you realize you need such a thing to get a permit.

    The DC carry scheme is stupid, unfair, etc. Along with Maryland, NJ, NY…

    It’s gonna take a Scotus ruling, not some 4 year old supposed threat (on the internet, I wonder?).

    • Yeah, if they even agree to hear the case.

      In NJ last year John Drake went after the state’s “justifiable need” garbage because he owns an ATM business that serves high crime areas. Supreme court said “nah” and that was that.

  12. That was a threat?

    To me it read more like some young aspiring musician sent in some new rap lyrics for the music column.

    (Not to make light of a threat but it was so repetitive…)

  13. “I have a poster of you on my wall and every day I fantasize about how you’re gonna get it so bad….”

    I couldn’t decide if it sounded more like a threat or some sort of S&M foreplay.

    …But it certainly did sound disconcerting.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *