FNS-9C (courtesy Rhonda Little for The Truth About Guns)

“District Judge Frederick J. Scullin Jr. last week gutted the system police use to determine who should be allowed a permit to bear a concealed weapon in the District,” the Washington Post’s editorial board recounts. “At issue is the provision that gives police discretion in granting gun permits by requiring applicants to state a good reason why they need to carry a weapon in public.” The “good cause” provision of D.C.’s “may issue” concealed carry laws are only “at issue” amongst those who seek to deny Americans their natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms. Like the Washington Post. But sometimes your enemy is your friend . . .

The Post editorial – ‘D.C.’s gun protections should stand’ is a plea for the District to appeal Scullin’s decision to the Supreme Court. If D.C. Attorney General Karl A. Racine does so, and the Supremes agrees to hear the case, we may finally have a Court ruling that extends the individual right to keep and bear arms outside the home, striking down the “may issue” laws which create a de facto ban on concealed carry for millions of Americans.

I know. It’s ridiculous that any court of law would acknowledge (and thus protect) the individual right to keep and bear arms only in the home. But there it is. Courts throughout the United States have subjected concealed and open carry restrictions to argument about social utility, summarized by the phrase “do it for the children.” It’s an elitist attitude, illustrated here [paragraph break added]:

The only ruling that found fault with this “may issue” system of permitting, from a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, was vacated; the full court is set to hear the case next month. That Judge Scullin’s ruling is such a legal outlier gives the District good cause to appeal it.

The even more powerful reason is what is at stake — not only for the District but also the nation. No city needs to be more mindful of who can carry concealed weapons in public than the capital, which is home to the president, the workplace of Congress and host to world leaders and dignitaries. It’s a point sadly lost on Judge Scullin, a senior U.S. district judge from Upstate New York who was assigned to hear the case because of a court backlog.

Was the Post so quick to dismiss challenges to “gay marriage” bans back in the day, when courts around the country consistently ruled against it? I don’t think so. Nor do I think the Post’s “D.C. is a special case” argument reflects well on their respect for the principles upon which this country stands. Specifically, the “all men are created equal” preamble to the Declaration of Independence.

D.C. Attorney General Karl A. Racine, in consultation with other D.C. officials, is weighing the city’s options. He should make every effort to get this harmful ruling reversed.

Harmful? To whom is it harmful that Americans are able the exercise their gun rights without government infringement? Why, the government of course. And their lackies. Need I mention any names? Anyway, I know you should be careful what you wish for, but I hope this editorial helps inspire an appeal on Scullin’s ruling. Watch this space.

38 Responses to Washington Post Champions Gun Rights – In Its Own Special Way

  1. The anti-freedom people have done a very good job at framing this conversation, instead of getting to the point of “shall not be infringed” we instead are debating which infringements we will tolerate, well played, well played indeed.

    • That is “which we will tolerate *right now”, since there will be more almost instantly as soon as this is accepted.

  2. And right next door, this is going on:

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/virginia-politics/arlington-neighborhood-resists-gun-shop-opening-in-strip-mall/2015/05/22/1c33c71e-0093-11e5-833c-a2de05b6b2a4_story.html

    The headline, of course, is misleading, as it is actually not “Arlington” that is resisting, but only a group of people from surrounding neighborhood along with people from as far away from Texas who are willing to sign the change.org petition.

    Interestingly, the “reasons for signing” section of the petition seems to have disappeared, perhaps after a number of them were repeated on neighborhood message boards in a less than flattering light. I noted the following on my own neighborhood message board. I questioned the lack of equivalent support for an earlier petition in opposition to the location of a firearms dealer in a predominantly African-American neighborhood in South Arlington:

    [Begin quotes]

    “I’d also be interested in knowing where all of these concerned people were when the petition below was out there, which made all of the same arguments, but in South Arlington. It was unsuccessful, by the way:

    http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/community-affairs-guns-in-nauck

    “These are some interesting quotes from supporters of the current petition:

    “I’m appalled that gun shop would be located in a north arlington neighborhood community.”

    “This is in my zip code and I do not want it in my zip code.”

    “This is not an appropriate location for this store. Know your demographic and clientele- go about 20 minutes South and you’ll make better business.”

    “Gun stores don’t belong in gentle neighborhoods like Cherrydale and Maywood; they belong out in the country.”

    “I admit, though, that I was particularly impressed by this one:

    “I do not support a fun [sic] store near our schools.” I think there is a Freudian slip in there, but, well, who knows? (And it was repeated by at least two separate posters.)
    [End Quotes]

    The Post comments section has been heavily edited, too. For example, when commenters suggested that, in Arlington, an alarm system was a more-than-adequate substitute for a firearm in the home, the moderators have deleted multiple posts pointing out that the home of the Savopoulos familyin Washington, DC had an alarm system which was clearly ineffective in preventing the brutal murders of four people.

    The moderators also appear to have deleted my comment providing a link to the Youtube video from the Atlanta car-jacking incident as an illustration of a proper defensive use of a legally owned handgun.

    • I have been to NOVA Firearms’ McLean VA location several times. Very nice people, good service, tiny space. Basically the size of two bedrooms. No wonder they want to move.

    • well, I guess if they don’t like the 2nd amendment, why the heck should they really bother with any other ones, especially if they don’t fit the narrative they want.

  3. “No city needs to be more mindful of who can carry concealed weapons in public than the capital, which is home to the president, the workplace of Congress and host to world leaders and dignitaries.”

    Another case of news proggies spouting the “All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others” mantra.

    Also, if the proles aren’t allowed guns, why do we have such an armed presence in the capital?

    • Thanks for repeating that quote, I had somehow missed the obvious response. The President, the Congress, the SCOTUS, and assorted world leaders are precisely the people who the founders INTENDED to be surrounded by armed Americans every single day.

    • That line is absolutely one of the dumbest things I’ve ever read. You know who can carry a concealed handgun in D.C.? Anybody who is willing to break the law. And anybody who’s looking to shoot a senator or the president is someone who’s obviously left law-abiding in the dust long ago. Stupid, stupid, stupid.

      The people willing to jump through the hoops of the licensing system (regardless of whether it’s “shall” or “may” issue) are not the concealed carriers to be worried about.

    • It’s to keep would be assassins from killing them. The ONLY thing keeping the president safe, is DC’s may issue process. Not the fact that murder is illegal. Not the fact that there’s a team of snipers on the roof of the white house, and a paramilitary team ready to take down any one who gets over the fence. Not the fact that he’s surrounded by secured doors, blast proof windows, and secret service agents. It’s only the pistol permits.

      • “Truth and news are not the same thing.” – Katharine Graham, owner of The Washington Post

      • The ONLY thing keeping the president safe, is DC’s may issue process. Wrong. Actually it is Tactical Joe Biden becoming President if the Dear Little Agitator is incapacitated. A terrifying thought indeed.

  4. Denial of citizens ability lawful self protection is a criminal act and immoral. It serves only to employ and maintain cash flow for the Triad – legislators, police, and legal system.

    • Well, the stars of the show are the criminals who would like to thank your elected politicians for any and all gun control laws to enable their higher aspirations in life.

      • only to employ and maintain cash flow for the Triad – legislators, police, and legal system. They are the supporting and enabling crew behind the TV cameras.

  5. It is a scathing indictment of our government and those who sit at the hand of government that this is even an issue. There are no Constitutional anti gun laws in this country……period. Even more of a pity is not the fact that “may issue” is an issue ( no pun intended) but that the state would require us to obtain a permit to exercise a civil right int he first place. Where will this end??

  6. It’s too bad that many judges can’t use logic, reasoning and have a desire to seek the truth. Social utility arguments to prevent people from having guns are not backed up by facts, research or anything else anti’s can dream up. Prohibition doesn’t prevent crimes, it just keeps good people from exercising a right. That should be very clear, but the coke bottle glasses of statism prevent them from seeing that.

    • “Prohibition doesn’t prevent crimes, it just keeps good people from exercising a right.”

      Keeps good people from lawfully defending themselves.

      This is why 2a should be amended to say the right to keep and bear arms and lawful self protection shall not be infringed

  7. D.C. Attorney General Karl A. Racine, in consultation with other D.C. officials, is weighing the city’s options. He should make every effort to get this harmful ruling reversed.

    “Please don’t throw me in dat briar patch!” – Br-er Rabbit

    • that chain is there for your safety. to contain the MONSTROUS HP and TORQUE! for the children.

  8. If it does go to the Supreme court and is won by “Us”. Id love to see NYC swim in permit applications.
    I paid my close to $400 bux every 2 years and was pissed off every check I wrote
    Id sue the city for a refund if passed.

  9. Scullin’s ruling is a temporary injunction. His original ruling (which was rather scathing) about D.C. carry clearly stated that they must pass a “shall issue” carry law. They did not. He just fixed it. Such an injunction is awarded when the judge thinks that the plaintiffs (the good guys) will likely win on appeal.

    We need more judges like Scullin, who you should note is from NY.

    • Umm, no. A preliminary (not temporary–which exist but for other purposes) injunction is issued if the trial judge believes that the moving party will likely prevail on the merits at trial for a permanent injunction. it has nothing to do with appeals. The case is NOT over in the trial court (District Court), although the rules may allow the City to attempt to seek an appeal of this interim ruling; its alternative is to go to trial and appeal from the final judgment.

  10. I think the WaPo makes a pretty good point about DC being a special case. With so many dignitaries and political officials making up a substantial portion of the population, it stands to reason that the risk of undue influence could create problems. I’m glad to see that they are finally taking a stance against DC statehood and are finally condemning the Taxation without Representation plates.

    What do you mean they aren’t?

  11. “If D.C. Attorney General Karl A. Racine does so, and the Supremes agree to hear the case, we may finally have a Court ruling that extends the individual right to keep and bear arms outside the home.”

    We may also get a Court ruling that kills it. Most likely, however, the current ruling will be killed on appeal and then cert denied by SCOTUS. They’ve done it enough times with “may issue” cases to suggest a pattern.

  12. Well, the WAPO editors again reveal their Progressive Agenda, and outright disinformatzia.

    Its not enough to spin the results 180 degrees out, by comparing the decision by Judge Scullin as contrary to “other states” as if those are the majority (NY, NJ, MD) but rather the minority by far in terms of how states view the right to carry, just as the two previous “news” articles, ignored the reality:

    http://www.handgunlaw.us/

    But the editors also flat-out lied about what SCOTUS decided: that keep and bear (outside the home) was constitutional. IANAL, so I will let others explain:

    Per the WAPO’s own Prof Eugene Volokh:
    http://volokh.com/2012/03/05/federal-district-court-recognizes-right-to-carry-gun-outside-the-home-holds-unconstitutional-marylands-restrictive-carry-licensing-scheme/
    Per Yale:
    http://www.yalelawjournal.org/article/open-carry-for-all-heller-and-our-nineteenth-century-second-amendment
    Per Cornell:
    http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1112&context=facpub

    From the Judge O’Scannlain’s brilliant Peruta decision*, which built on Heller, McDonald, and the constitutional scholarship about Founders original intent, like the above,

    “Our conclusion that the right to bear arms includes the right to carry an
    operable firearm outside the home for the lawful purpose of self-defense is perhaps
    unsurprising—other circuits faced with this question have expressly held, or at the
    very least have assumed, that this is so. Moore, 702 F.3d at 936 (“A right to bear
    arms thus implies a right to carry a loaded gun outside the home.”); see also, e.g.,
    Drake, 724 F.3d at 431 (recognizing that the Second Amendment right “may have
    some application beyond the home”); Woollard v. Gallagher, 712 F.3d 865, 876
    (4th Cir. 2013) (“We . . . assume that the Heller right exists outside the home . . .
    .”); Kachalsky, 701 F.3d at 89 (assuming that the Second Amendment “must have
    some application in the very different context of the public possession of
    firearms”).”

    *which since it has been depublished by the 9th, while awaiting appeal by the second, 11 judge en banc panel, on June 16th,
    is NOT on the 9ths court page, but may be found here, courtesy Michel Lawyers, along with other docs:
    http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/Peruta-Opinion.pdf

  13. SCOTUS doesn’t want any more 2A cases because nobody trusts Kennedy, the swing vote. Pro-2A Justices think he might go squishy, and anti-2A Justices think he might go more hard core.

    Frankly, I’d rather take my chances now, when the makeup of the Court is known. If we lose any of the 2A Justices through death or retirement, 2A will be buried by the cabal of Clinton/Obama appointees.

  14. RF: for future reference, there are three levels of the federal court system, trial courts (called District Courts), appeals courts, called Circuit Courts of Appeals (yes Appeals, not Appeal–they want you to know that your case is just one of a plethora) and finally SCOTUS. This case is a long long way from SCOTUS. For one, there may be no appeal until after trial, the scheduling of which we will soon know, followed by an appeal, followed by a petition for cert to the Supremes. Although this was a very exciting decision, its final resolution is probably a couple of years off. And it is extremely likely that the City will seek a stay pending appeal, because of all the carry permits it will have to issue under a shall issue system, and it is likely that the D.C Circuit will grant that stay, as it did with the Palmer case.

    • Right, and if an en banc review is ordered after the 3-judge panel rules on the appeal, one can end up waiting for what becomes an effectively 4-tier system to run its course. Not likely in this situation though, since it’s hard to imagine a 3-judge panel in the DC circuit upholding the latest Palmer (or is it a separate case with another name now?) ruling, and the losing pro-gun side would likely directly petition SCOTUS for cert at that point.

      • Gura and SAF won Palmer. That was to challenge DCs “no issue” status. DC was going to appeal, then dropped it, when it was obvious they would not prevail.

        Undoubtedly anticipating same, Gura/SAF had already found sympathetic plaintiffs for Wrenn, Akerly vs DC, and filed, to challenge the “may issue- good reason required” arguing that self-defense alone is good reason,

        and the language in Judge Scullins Preliminary Injunction is what is being written about now. IANAL, but some IMHO, Scullin’s decision in the Preliminary Injunction signals his final decision, which will be concluded as Mark N described. So its just a matter of time and going thru any legal steps to get to that end.

        At which point the DC Council will decide if they will appeal. The consensus and announcements are they will.

        The Second Circuit Court has had a number of judges appointed recently by Obama, which implies politics, of course. We will have to see how the appeal goes there, and if Scullin’s decision is reversed there, then GURA would request cert from SCOTUS.

        Where it will involve the same issues- Heller’s “bear outside the home”, in terms of what is the limits of scrutiny and how to define government interest narrowly enough as to real effects on public safety.

        IMHO thats the next big pieces of 2A law to be determined, and one reason why SCOTUS hasn’t taken up 2A cases, from different CAs lately, as they dont expressly provide for a wide-ranging enough decision.

        We’ll get there first on Peruta/Richards, the two pending orals at the 9th, June 16th, which if reversed will be petitioned for cert next term in the fall.

        More good legal info and local chatter at mdshooters.com on Wrenn,
        and calguns.net on Peruta/Richards.

  15. Is it not hypocritical for the Post to suggest that D.C., being such a “special” place, should be a rights free zone?

  16. “Truth and news are not the same thing.” – Katharine Graham, owner of The Washington Post

  17. Something tells me the WAPO isnt going to be able to just direct who should do what, if they ever did, in their own minds at least.

    New Attorney General in DC was first one to be VOTED in, for addressing public corruption issues that have long plagued Democrat dominated DC politics. http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dc-politics/dc-voters-set-to-choose-their-first-elected-attorney-general-tuesday/2014/11/04/d06e9160-6141-11e4-8b9e-2ccdac31a031_story.html

    And he has already said the ruling by Scullins was constitutional.

    Will the City appeal? Thats up to the DC Mayor “I hate guns” Muriel, and Council “we dont care about privacy rights” members:
    http://ammoland.waywire.com/video/DC-Council-Member-Who-Cares-Abo;Gun-Rights-Second-Amendment

  18. I would say (in response to the notion that the ruling is harmful to the government) that it isn’t even harmful to the government. Many in the government might think it is harmful to it, but it just ain’t so.

  19. WashPost is so lefty that was an old,jokemabout the headline they would run if an asteroid was about to end life on earth:

    “WORLD ENDS TOMORROW – WOMEN AND MINORITIES HARDEST HIT”

Leave a Reply

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