Washington DC’s Concealed Carry Permit Approval Rate: 21%

ScreenHunter_134-Sep.-08-18.59

By Brandon via concealednation.org

Since a judge struck down Washington DC’s ban on concealed carry in July of 2014, a total of 206 applications have been filed. And of those 206, just 44 have received their permits to carry concealed in our nation’s capital. That’s just 21% . . .

Earlier this year, there were just a handful of applications received. The reason? Likely the hoops that needed to be jumped through to obtain the permit, not to mention the requirement of showing “good reason” for needing to carry a firearm outside the home. However back in May of this year, a judge struck down the “good reason” requirement for DC concealed carry permits.

But then it came back. Who knows, really. This is politics.

comments

  1. avatar John Franco says:

    Their police chief is a spineless political beauracrat that is why there have only been twenty one percent approved. Sge knows nothing about the Constitution, does not want to know anything about it, and ONLY cares about her paycheck. She is a shameless puppet, a political hack!

    1. avatar Tom in Oregon says:

      As soon as I saw her photo, I thought to myself- she has just about THE most political job in DC.
      Appointed, not elected. More masters than you can shake a stick at.

      1. avatar Mark N. says:

        Most if not all city police chiefs are appointed/hired. Even in NYC, Chicago and LA. Only sheriffs are elected. In DC, the city council has expressed its intent that permits are to be issued to almost no one; and a chief who does not toe the line will be fired. But then again, Lanier is a gun banner too, so it is a convenient meeting of minds.

        1. avatar mark s. says:

          Just proves how many crazy whacko criminals there are in DC . System is working . I don’t know if I would trust 10 of the people there with a firearm but then again it is a way to fix the term limits problem . Send em back into session armed and loaded .

        2. avatar foodog says:

          3% approval rate on Chief Lanier:
          http://www.dcspotlight.com/featured/survey-d-c-police-have-no-confidence-in-chief-lanier/

          Cheer up. The permit approval rate is seven times that…

      2. avatar Chip Bennett says:

        I get on this soapbox often: police chiefs need to be elected, not appointed. The people, who give power to the police chief, have the right to hold the police chief directly accountable for the handling of that power.

        1. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

          In some states, Florida may be one, state Supreme Court justices are appointed initially, but thereafter are subject to retention elections the public. (In Texas, SC justices are elected outright.) What are your thoughts on such an appointment/election hybrid approach?

          On the one hand, it ensures an appointed candidate results from a national search, as opposed to just whomever is local and already has name recognition and funding. It also grants the voters a direct means of firing them, as opposed to indirectly by voting out the mayor first, who then would replace the P.D. chief (maybe).

          On the other hand, it grants instant incumbency, which is a valuable advantage in the next election over challengers.

          What do you think?

        2. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          I think the appointment/retention election hybrid is a good approach for the judiciary (at any level); however, I think police chiefs should be elected outright – just like sheriffs.

          (Additionally, since the county Sheriff is the constitutional law enforcement officer, I think that police chiefs should be subordinate to the county Sheriff – rather than being subordinate to a mayor or other executive-branch commission, council, or official.)

        3. avatar LarryinTX says:

          If they are appointed, they should be able to be fired without notice. If they are elected, they should be reelected every time there is an election for anything, one year would be great. As we’ve seen with the KY fruitcake clerk, elected means she cannot be fired, must be “impeached” by the legislature. Plusses and minuses.

        4. avatar LarryinTX says:

          J-H, a national search got Austin a police chief from CA, with predictable results, the man is a turd, police state enthusiast all the way. I don’t know there is any clear answer.

        5. avatar Curtis in IL says:

          Chip,
          The people who elect statist mayors and city council members will elect the same kind of sheriff, if it were an elected position. What you propose only slightly alters the chain of command between the voters and law enforcement, and won’t give us better sheriffs.

        6. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          If the people in some jurisdictions fail to exercise their voting power (consent-of-the-governed rights) in a wise or responsible manner, then they will get what they deserve. The rest of us should not be denied our rights and power because of others’ irresponsibility.

        7. avatar Curtis in IL says:

          Sorry. I meant police chiefs, not sheriffs.

          One example: The Cook County, IL Sheriff is cut from the same cloth as all the other statist politicians in Chicago.

        8. avatar GunGeek says:

          Chip, I can see good and not so good reasons electing chiefs.
          1. Unions. If elected, public unions would likely have much more clout than they do currently in states with powerful public unions. Unions positions and public safety are NOT necessarily aligned.

          2. Chiefs are typically ‘at will’ employees with contracts. If a new mayor wants to clean house, s/he can. No so with an elected chief.

          3. We elect judges in my area. Precious little info to rely on to make informed ballot decisions. I generally follow the bar association recommendations because there isn’t much else available.

          4. I worry about corruption among elected officials. Particularly in that type of job.

        9. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          How are any of those concerns lessened by making the police chief an appointed position, rather than an elected position?

          1. Unions have far greater behind-the-scenes influence over a political appointment than they do over an election.

          2. Why should law enforcement policy be subordinate to the mayor? LEO should enforce laws, without worrying about political/social policy.

          3. An uninformed decision by the electorate is infinitely better than an electorate disenfranchised by a political appointment.

          4. Would not the potential for corruption be far greater for a politically appointed police chief, who faces no direct retribution/accountability from the electorate?

        10. avatar GunGeek says:

          “Unions have far greater behind-the-scenes influence over a political appointment than they do over an election.”
          Not where I live. Union backed candidates don’t dominate city council, nor did their candidate win mayoral election.

          “Why should law enforcement policy be subordinate to the mayor? LEO should enforce laws, without worrying about political/social policy.”

          Interesting. What appointed or elected LEOs don’t worry about politics and social policy? Or any C-level executive for that matter. In general, the public credits or blames a mayor for public safety. And mayors and governors are quick to capitalize on anything that seems to reflect positively on them such as lower crime rates.

          “An uninformed decision by the electorate is infinitely better than an electorate disenfranchised by a political appointment.” Well…okay then.

          “Would not the potential for corruption be far greater for a politically appointed police chief, who faces no direct retribution/accountability from the electorate?”

          Can’t find analyses that make completing arguments for either choice. Though this one claims that elected chiefs are less influenced by big-city gun grabbing mayor appointed ones http://americancopmagazine.com/elected-vs-appointed/

        11. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          “Unions have far greater behind-the-scenes influence over a political appointment than they do over an election.”
          Not where I live. Union backed candidates don’t dominate city council, nor did their candidate win mayoral election.

          Aren’t we saying the same thing? Unions have more influence on appointments than they do on elected positions.

          Interesting. What appointed or elected LEOs don’t worry about politics and social policy?

          Sheriffs. At least, most of the ones out here in fly-over country, and in most rural areas.

    2. avatar Ray says:

      I was expecting 2.1% but lacking good cause to deny it should be more like 98%

    3. avatar foodog says:

      Here’s a couple outcomes of the “vote” on Chief Lanier:
      http://www.dcspotlight.com/featured/survey-d-c-police-have-no-confidence-in-chief-lanier/

      Conspicously absent in the reporting on crime in DC is column three, here:
      http://homicidewatch.org/suspects/

  2. avatar Ralph says:

    Considering that the approval rate was about zero before the court got involved, 21% is a start.

    1. avatar styrgwillidar says:

      I’m guessing that, as occurs in some California counties, the 21% are folks with connections- politicians, friends or relatives of higher ranking police officers, folks the police want to curry favor with etc. etc.

      1. avatar MarkPA says:

        I don’t think we know enough to make educated guesses. The only thing I know is that Emily Miller got her permit. From what I understand, the evidence she could present wasn’t overwhelming; it was reasonably persuasive. Perhaps DC didn’t want to get into a pissing match with a woman who buys her ink by the barrel.

        It may be the case that ordinary DC residents who are able to present evidence of need comparable to that which Emily Miller provided were approved. Were that the case then I would NOT be the least bit encouraged. The notion of “need” as a prerequisite would still be in place. It would be very difficult for a substantial number of ordinary people who are willing to jump through the regulatory hoops to make a substantial case of need.

        The 2A still needs a judicial ruling prohibiting “need”; or, a Congressional mandate. Either one.

        “Need” is the ultimate rationing prerequisite. The barrier can be set as high as the political powers choose to make it.

        I would be LESS uncomfortable with a test or training requirement. Admittedly, a test or training barrier could be set high by political powers. Nevertheless, some constraints would exist. E.g., if the test/training were far in excess of the gun test/training required of the jurisdiction’s police then the disparity would be vulnerable to political or judicial review. There are plenty of citizens who would be determined to meet it; whereupon, it would be difficult to resist erosions of such testing/training barriers.

        I’m not advocating testing/training requirements; quite to the contrary. I’m merely arguing that the need prerequisite is significantly more restrictive than another objectionable prerequisite.

        We need to hammer away at this need prerequisite; it seems to be to be the most philosophically objectionable because it treats citizens differently; it violates equal protection and due process.

    2. avatar LarryinTX says:

      What is the average annual income of the 44 approved?

      1. avatar GunGeek says:

        Or if their application is a public record. Seem to recall that personal details aren’t in my county.

  3. avatar NJ2AZ says:

    21% of the time you are approved every time!

    1. avatar NYC2AZ says:

      I’m gonna be honest with you, that approval rate smells like pure bullshit.

      1. avatar Galtha58 says:

        Read closely as it appears that the 21% is only for those that make it to a certain point. It appears the others don’t count. Here, in WA State we are “Shall Issue” and I would bet that almost 100% are approved. None of that having to show good cause crap here. If you want a permit and they cannot show a good reason NOT to give it to you then you get it. Personally, I would like to see some kind of minimum training requirement but many do not agree with me on that. Regardless, we are much more “FREE” because of that particular law here than those in D.C., NYC, LA and several other places that we could all name.

        1. avatar gsnyder says:

          Minimum training?, people who don’t agree?, I’m one. The situation in WA ST is safe except for the infiltration of the progressives stomping on our Rights. Suggesting what you do sounds so “common sense” but it isn’t sensible at all. In fact, it is typical of a progressive to suggest such. Here’s the lesson, don’t try to fix things which are not broken. I used to have thoughts as you’ve expressed but wisdom has taught me different. There is good reason people don’t agree with you.

          -A WA ST firearm owner.

        2. avatar NYC2AZ says:

          Like NJ2AZ’s original line, my response is a play on “The Anchorman” quote.

        3. avatar MarkPA says:

          “I would like to see some kind of minimum training requirement . . . ” I’m sympathetic to some sort of test or training requirement; HOWEVER, in the present climate, it will be abused. It will be used to exclude the poor and those who don’t have the time and money to meet the training requirement.

          I acknowledge that we have a PR issue to deal with. If drivers must be tested why not gun carriers? I think the answer we ought to take here is that the approach to training/testing must be Constitutional or it will be abused. See how legislatures have abused gun rights under “May-Issue” to make them impediments on exercising a Constitutionally protected right?

          Let Congress “prescribe” the “discipline” for the “militia” and then compel the States to execute their duty to “train” according to the “discipline prescribed by Congress”. Eddie-Eagle for elementary school. 4-Rules for Middle School. Marksmanship or Carry for High School. I.e., Universal Gun Safety training, just as prescribed in the Constitution. Make Universal training as stringent as will serve public safety objectives. It’s “for the children” who – in American society – are apt to come upon a gun unpredictably. (E.g., a NJ Sheriff told of an armed robber who tossed his crime gun. Two young boys happened upon it and played with it; one killed the other. He called for Eddie Eagle in every elementary school in his county and the schools agreed; NJ!)

          Once training-to-arms is made universal then it can’t be made onerous. Congress will not prescribe a curriculum of 1,000 hours; the States wouldn’t spend the money to train to such a curriculum.

          And, incidentally, we will inoculate our society from hoplophobia. Isn’t that tragic!

          If the Anti’s are not interested in the public safety of children, adolescents and adults coming upon a gun unprepared then they aren’t really interested in training; isn’t that so! Look at the San Francisco case of the illegal alien killing Katherine Steinle. From the published accounts, this incident looks like gross negligent homicide (not murder). My guess is that the shooter had no clue about gun safety and simply grabbed the “user interface” in the manner invited by its ergonomic design.

          If Federal agents are going to leave guns where they can be stolen; and, those guns may wind up just about anywhere such as wrapped in a t-shirt on a San Francisco pier; where just about anyone – including an adult illegal alien convicted of felonies and repeatedly deported could pick them up . . . Well, then, doesn’t it make sense to train and test for gun safety ubiquitously? This isn’t Japan you know; America is much more like Switzerland without universal military service.

          The question of the public-safety utility could be approached in either of two ways: empirically; or, beginning with principles and rationalizing a conclusion.

          What is the empirical evidence that gun carriers in States with training requirements have fewer negligent discharges relative to States with no training requirements? Oh, can’t make your case for a training mandate empirically? Fine, then . . .

          Let’s begin with principles of putting a high value on education and safety. If guns are dangerous, just like pharmaceuticals, cleaning chemicals, cars, machinery, then we ought to spend more than enough money in society to ensure the safety of everyone who might encounter these common objects. We emphasize to parents to child-proof their homes, we teach chemistry to high school students so they know the danger of mixing chemicals such as ammonia and chlorine; we have driver’s ed, and so forth. Oh, guns are a taboo? Teach about every other danger but we can’t teach gun safety? Fine, then . . . gun training just isn’t that important as we might have thought, is it?

        4. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          Personally, I would like to see some kind of minimum training requirement but many do not agree with me on that.

          Please cite sources that show either that such training requirements (minimum or otherwise) provide any benefit, or that states without such requirements demonstrate any harm.

          Not only is it utterly unconstitutional to subject the exercise of a natural right constitutionally protected against government infringement to government-mandated training; but also, those who support such an unconstitutional requirement cannot even demonstrate a bare minimum of social utility for such training.

        5. avatar GunGeek says:

          Direct data is hard to come by. Accident investigations do show a strong correlation between improved safety training and accidents due to employee error. Amtrack and airline safety are but two examples.

          Yesterday a friend relayed observations from a gun store clerk about the relative high rate of failure in passing CA’s written FSC test – study guide http://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/agweb/pdfs/firearms/forms/hscsg.pdf

          One can score 75% and still pass. Sample test questions are online too.

          I despise many of CA’s senseless gun regulations and our 10 day waiting period, but not the test or 5 year renewal. But by design or stroke of luck, we have significantly fewer ADs than I see for traffic violations despite that written test.

        6. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          Accident investigations do show a strong correlation between improved safety training and accidents due to employee error. Amtrack and airline safety are but two examples.

          What do trains and airplanes, and their safe operation, have anything at all to do with safe firearms handling?

          But by design or stroke of luck, we have significantly fewer ADs than I see for traffic violations despite that written test.

          Holy non sequitur, batman.

          There are a half-dozen states with constitutional carry, and other states that issue licenses/permits without a training requirement. It is those states to which you need to compare California’s required-training system – not traffic violations.

          Further: why are NDs the criterion? Why not accidental injury or fatality? Why not firearms-related murder/manslaughter arrests/convictions (or successful/unsuccessful claims of use of deadly force in self-defense, given that most “training” consists of legal training, rather than firearms handling)?

        7. avatar GunGeek says:

          Chip,
          “Please cite sources that show either that such training requirements (minimum or otherwise) provide any benefit, or that states without such requirements demonstrate any harm.”

          As mentioned, specific data is tough to come by to make a case for either position. I gave DOT findings as a data source since they undertake a fairly rigorous investigation including linkage to training and safety. Conversely, one could argue that training is irrelevant and cite NYPD spray & pray incidents.

          Some departments have adopted Shewhart principles. San Jose PD has changed the Duty Manual and training as a result of investigations. Independent Police Auditor reports show improvement that correlates to PD actions. Everything’s online if you want to review.

          I believe the FBI uses a similar practice, though their data doesn’t seem as transparent as SJPD’s.

          Applicable to POTG? Suspect so, but that type of research isn’t a good use of my time.

        8. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          As mentioned, specific data is tough to come by to make a case for either position. I gave DOT findings as a data source since they undertake a fairly rigorous investigation including linkage to training and safety. Conversely, one could argue that training is irrelevant and cite NYPD spray & pray incidents.

          The default status is shall not be infringed. That position does not need to prove anything. The right to keep and to bear arms is a natural right, a civil right, and a constitutionally protected right. The burden lies with those who wish to impose infringements upon that right.

          What I’m inferring from what you’re saying is that there are no real data that show that firearms training requirements provide any measurable public good, or that lack of firearms training requirement cause any measurable public harm.

          There are state-by-state crime statistics (via FBI). There are state-by-state fatality statistics (via CDC).

          Some departments have adopted Shewhart principles. San Jose PD has changed the Duty Manual and training as a result of investigations. Independent Police Auditor reports show improvement that correlates to PD actions. Everything’s online if you want to review.

          Wouldn’t this be a comparison of one training method against another, as opposed to lack of training requirements vs mandated training? Also: police train for entirely different reasons that non-LEO. There’s still no equitable comparison.

          Applicable to POTG? Suspect so, but that type of research isn’t a good use of my time.

          So we can equally discard the notion of supporting mandated training requirements as a prerequisite to the exercise of RKBA?

        9. avatar GunGeek says:

          “What I’m inferring from what you’re saying is that there are no real data that show that firearms training requirements provide any measurable public good, or that lack of firearms training requirement cause any measurable public harm.”

          That would be incorrect.

          Not a good use of my time to research unsupported claims. Happy to review studies you uncover.

        10. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          Not a good use of my time to research unsupported claims. Happy to review studies you uncover.

          The unsupported claim is that training requirements as a prerequisite to firearms carry licenses serves some legitimate purpose. As I am not the one advocating this claim, I am not likely to search for studies to substantiate it.

        11. avatar MarkPA says:

          The problem here – testing/training for gun keeping or bearing – is whether any draft bill would constitute an “infringement”.

          In the case of what other Constitutionally-guaranteed right do we contemplate a testing/training requirement? The closest I can get is that we test lawyers before we allow them to provide the advice of council guaranteed defendants. Lack of ANY precedent ought to give us pause in rushing to impose a testing/training regime on any fundamental right.

          There is no question that governments are want to use testing/training requirements to restrict liberty unnecessarily. Where the right in question is declared explicitly as necessary to the security of a free state it is even more dangerous to entrust government with any power that it’s likely to abuse for tyrannical purposes.

          There is nothing like a compelling empirical case to justify such a measure. Nevertheless, if as a policy matter we agree as a people that training and testing is a good idea then the way is open. Congress can prescribe the discipline for the militia and the States can be compelled to train to that prescription. When all (or virtually all) the People are trained-to-arms uniformly then the potential for abuse of such a power to constrain the practice of keeping or bearing arms is substantially eliminated.

        12. avatar GunGeek says:

          Interesting point.

          As I suspect you know better than I, there are limitations: Schneck v. United States being but one. Don’t know if the fundamental issue of a state’s authority about testing has been challenged. but did find this http://www.crpa.org/firearm-safety-certificate-lawsuit/

          I’d expect if the issue were still unsettled, then it would have been included in the suit.

        13. avatar MarkPA says:

          “As I suspect you know better than I,. . . ”
          Your confidence in me is ill founded; I suspect you know better than I.

          “. . . there are limitations: Schneck v. United States being but one.”

          Seems to me that Schneck’s reasoning is relatively shaky. I doubt such a ruling would be made today; particularly if liberals were arguing against the draft.

          I would concede that it is a well-established convention that we know what the Constitution means by virtue of the decisions published by SCOTUS. I do NOT concede that SCOTUS has the last word. The Constitution belongs to we the People. We could hold otherwise than as SCOTUS rules; and in any such case, we could assert the last word via an Amendment. Moreover, I think that there is some validity to the argument that the Executive and Legislative branches also are held to the responsibility of applying the Constitution and their interpretations can’t be summarily dismissed.

          “Don’t know if the fundamental issue of a state’s authority about testing has been challenged. but did find this http://www.crpa.org/firearm-safety-certificate-lawsuit/

          I’d expect if the issue were still unsettled, then it would have been included in the suit.”

          I do not hold complete conviction concerning the Constitutionality of the States to impose testing/training requirements for the right to bear arms. The standard is whether a State statue “infringes”. If a testing/training requirement were set low enough then – arguably – it might not “infringe”. Or, if the People insisted that it did infringe in principle, they might not bother to oppose it.

          I am more concerned that, were a State to adopt a testing/training requirement, it would be tempted to use that requirement for the purpose of erecting a barrier to the free exercise of the right. By analogy, suppose a State adopted a law requiring citizens to pass a literacy test before speaking in public. Lots of people wouldn’t bother to submit to the literacy test. Whereupon, the State could arrest and prosecute people who say things in public criticizing the State’s government or politicians. The objective would be to intimidate people from speaking in public. As one brick in a wall of barriers, we should be concerned here.

          I think that we need to be mostly concerned with our rhetoric in the defense of the 2A. To the typical voter, testing/training seems to be a marvelously good idea. They don’t see what a mess a legislator is apt to make of it (as is illustrated by your California link.) So, the question we PotG ought to think about is: ‘How do we respond to proposals for “common sense” regulations about testing/training?’

          I submit that it does us no good to simply bang the drum of “natural rights”. The typical voter will not be moved. We ought to think about an argument that is really apt to prove persuasive. And, an argument that is apt to really serve our objectives of promoting the RKBA and defending the 2A guarantee.

          My preferred strategy is to attack the idea of prior restraints on fundamental rights. If we admit of one, then all other fundamental rights are vulnerable. Governments will use prior constraints to abuse the free exercise of the right.

          Yes, training is a very good thing; and we the PotG are vigorous supporters of training to arms. The Constitution explicitly provides for training to arms for the militia. That avenue is clearly open to our legislatures. Congress has the power to prescribe the “discipline” for the militia; the States the “authority” to train to the discipline prescribed by Congress. We find absolutely no objection under the Constitution to universal (or virtually universal) training to arms.

          Neither Congress nor any State legislature would abuse these powers to impose a constraint upon the free exercise of the RKBA because the voters would demand a redress of grievance.

          We must be concerned not merely with intentional bearers of arms; rather, we must be concerned with safety when virtually everyone is vulnerable to encountering arms in our American society. Children may come upon arms carelessly left lying about; e.g., discarded by criminals who want to avoid being caught bearing arms after the commission of a felony or felons who fear being arrested for felon-in-posession. Adults may likewise encounter arms and not know how to secure them properly. E.g., a widow who encounters her husband’s gun in a closet and wishes to remove it from her dwelling. Universal training-to-arms at least to the extent of gun safety is the Constitutional and useful objective. Such a measure we support.

          Thereupon, it is NOT the fault of the PotG if hoplophobes oppose testing/training as authorized by the Constitution and as seems most useful for promoting gun safety in our society.

          Now, then, Mr./Mrs. Voter; Who is promoting gun safety and who is opposed? Whose proposal is for the children? Whose proposal is fraught with risk of infringement upon a fundamental right? Where, exactly, is the empirical evidence of a problem? Is it with the 5+% of the population who undertake to bare arms? Or, are the accidental tragedies originating with individuals who have NOT undertaken to keep or bear arms – i.e., people who have inadvertently come upon arms or who have acquired them illegally?

        14. avatar MarkPA says:

          “why are NDs the criterion? ” One can choose any criterion at taste. I think that ND is a good choice, but I wouldn’t denigrate anyone else’s choice just because I think that NDs are a good criterion.

          When we have an extremely rare event (something goes wrong with a law-abiding citizen using a gun) then picking the right criterion (criteria) is a delicate problem. Pick the wrong one and one is apt to have a distorted view.

          I think a good choice might be NDs plus “bad shots”. Either the citizen pressed the bang switch when he didn’t intend to; or, he intended to do so but his judgement was bad. Add them up; pretty rare events given all the shots fired in the US each year. Not bad given the number of law-abiding citizens who touch a gun 1+ times in a year.

          Before deciding what to do about an alleged “problem” I think the first thing to do is to reach a reasoned conclusion as to whether there is a problem worth dealing with. If we could add them up I think we would find that there are really very few bad shots by citizens and not many NDs; most of which don’t hit anyone or do property damage. Fewer still that kill anyone.

          We PotG are so safety conscious that we really ARE very concerned about NDs even though the probability of hitting someone are low and the odds of killing someone are even lower.

          In any case, reasonable people are entitled to disagree about how much of society’s efforts ought to be invested in any candidate “problem”. So, if enough folks believe that NDs and bad shots are enough of a problem that we really ought to “do something”; well, then (IMO) that’s fine. We should do that which is Constitutional.

          The problem of gun safety is ubiquitous. In a nation with more guns than residents we ought to admit that anyone who can crawl has some probability of encountering a gun. Gun safety is not just for PotG anymore; it’s for everyone! If we must DO SOMETHING for the children and the illegal immigrants (e.g., Kate Steinly’s killer, Sr. Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez) then what is called for is universal training-to-arms. Fortuitously, our founding fathers saw fit to authorize Congress to prescribe the “discipline” for the “militia” and for the States to train the militia “according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.”

          (One might argue that the “militia” is not, strictly speaking, everyone. It excludes pre-adolescents, the elderly and females. My counter-argument is that Congress is at liberty to expand or contract the definition of the militia – within reason – according to the needs of the nation. I don’t think that the founders would have foreclosed the possibility of a militia auxiliary, for example, inasmuch as the militiamen in a household might not be home when warriors came to call on the womenfolk. Congress could set the entry age for militiamen at 15 – 16 – 17; why not provide for a militia cadet age of 7?)

          We PotG ought to get on-board with our sisters, the Moms who Demand Action! especially for GunSense in America. Congress ought to prescribe: Eddie Eagle for elementary school; 4-rules for middle school; and, either marksmanship or carry-ship for high school. I think that Article I Section 8 could be construed to authorize this singular unfunded Federal mandate upon the States (“. . . reserving to the States respectively, . . . the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;”)

          If AirSoft guns are used for practice exercises the cost of ranges would be minimal. A few million dollars per State should suffice.

          I think we ought to be optimistic about unanimity in support for such a proposal. What is to be objected to? Certainly no Constitutional objection. Minimal cost. NRA will supply the curriculum royalty-free. It’s for the children and illegal immigrants; two deserving constituencies.

        15. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          “why are NDs the criterion? ” One can choose any criterion at taste. I think that ND is a good choice, but I wouldn’t denigrate anyone else’s choice just because I think that NDs are a good criterion.

          Agreed; that was a question, not a challenge.

          Before deciding what to do about an alleged “problem” I think the first thing to do is to reach a reasoned conclusion as to whether there is a problem worth dealing with. If we could add them up I think we would find that there are really very few bad shots by citizens and not many NDs; most of which don’t hit anyone or do property damage. Fewer still that kill anyone.

          You’ve hit on the point: NDs aren’t a meaningful risk. Accidental firearms deaths due to NDs are so far out in the tail of causes of accidental fatalities that they are essentially inconsequential.

          Because total accidental firearms deaths due to NDs are inconsequential, the state-to-state variations of those numbers are almost certainly not going to be statistically significant. There’s simply too much signal-to-noise.

          If that’s the case: how can anyone plausibly make the claim that training requirements for firearms carry licenses are serving any legitimate purpose whatsoever?

        16. avatar styrgwillidar says:

          “Let Congress “prescribe” the “discipline” for the “militia” and then compel the States to execute their duty to “train” according to the “discipline prescribed by Congress”.”

          No, a thousand times no. The whole point of the 2A was for the people to be armed, with the militia considered to be outside the regulation/oversight of the government. That’s the point. That’s why the viewed the right of the people to keep and bear arms as essential to having a militia. The people are a counter to the government, you can not make the RKBA subject to government restrictions/limitations or the militia will fail in it’s purpose to be a counter to government tyranny and a means of discouraging government overreach.

          You can not have a militia if the people are denied the right to keep and bear arms. It’s an impossibility.

        17. avatar MarkPA says:

          Read Article I Sec 8 of the Constitution. I didn’t make this up. The authors of the Constitution wrote these words. If you don’t like it, then start a drive to amend the Constitution.

          I would be delighted if Congress would do its duty and the States did their duty. Virtually all children would be trained-to-arms from a very young age. It would be very hard to make a hoplophobic society from such a student body. The kids would know better because they actually DID IT. That, and video games.

          I have no expectation that Congress would ever take the first step. The Antis would stop it. So, I’m not holding my breath and you need not hyperventilate yourself.

          This proposal is primarily rhetorical. You voters want gun safety? Well then yes, of course, let’s have gun safety. Train everyone because everyone in America has a modest probability of encountering a gun. Then, everyone will be trained to a national standard deemed adequate by Congress. What could go wrong?

          The number of hours of training might be: 10; 100; 1,000; 10,000 hours. I don’t care. If Congress deems 10 hours of training in Eddie Eagle and the 4 rules; fine. Everyone is trained to a national standard. If 100 hours, so much the better. Spread over 8 years of elementary/middle school and 4 years of high school, that’s just 8 hours per year; couple of days per year. Plenty enough to whet the appetite. By the time the kids get 1,000 hours of training (which Congress and the States would never consider prescribing and paying for) the kids would be hooked; as many as could ever be hooked. The people would revolt if 10,000 hours were spent on every child in America. You see, the political process provides a natural check.

          Why should you be fearful of a government prescription of gun safety? Thousands of troops go through boot camp every year. Do you see vets leaving the service as solid Blue Progressives? Doesn’t work that way. Once you take a bite of the apple, you get a taste of the knowledge of good and evil.

          Have you noticed how effective public schools are in discouraging teenage boys from playing violent video games? Thought so.

        18. avatar LarryinTX says:

          You are looking at this funny, . I have owned and carried handguns for nearly 50 years now, after 10 or so years I received training from the military several times with Expert Marksman awards, and you think I should be required to pay my own money for some kind of “training” before I can get government permission to carry? I’d guess the first time, the training would cost several hundred dollars, then when a grabber gains power, several thousand for a renewal (ability to require training now established fact, no reason to hold back any more) and several months of training 7 days a week, next time a hundred grand etc, etc, you are advocating handing absolute control to the government. Try to rethink.

          Advocate that the government PAY for any required training, prior to receiving a free license, and see how far that flies!

        19. avatar MarkPA says:

          LarryInTX – “You are looking at this funny, . ” Are you addressing your remarks at my proposal to have Congress prescribe the “discipline” for the militia? It’s a little difficult to tell the way the blog works.

          You completely misconstrue my proposal. My proposal is precisely to avoid everything you described. Completely disconnect any notion of training from the RKBA. Absolutely no connection. None. If you manage to escape being educated within the boundaries of the United States then you have your RKBA as a citizen with no training whatsoever. (I had a colleague once who was raise in France by a French father and American mother. Nearly spoke understandable English. Has a US passport.) How are you going to do accomplish this? Have your parents send you to be schooled abroad?

          What is the objective? To ensure that all persons in the US who are vulnerable to encountering guns are trained to arms sufficient to promote the laudable goal of gun safety. In a couple of generations, virtually all Americans would be trained-to-arms; whether they have any interest whatsoever in keeping or bearing. It doesn’t matter. You might be an illegal immigrant who finds a gun on a pier in San Francisco; could have been abandoned there by a thief who stole it from a Federal agent. Stranger things have happened. The State would have the “authority” and the responsibility to train the militia to the discipline prescribed by Congress. It would be a failure of California to neglect to see to the training of this illegal immigrant. Having taken up residence in America – illegal or not – he can be compelled to do his duty as a member of the unorganized militia. Or, alternatively, deport him.

          If we can achieve 90 – 98% of universal training we are apt to cover as much of the potential gun safety problem as any scheme might hope to reach. Remember, it’s for the children and everyone around when an untrained person picks up a loaded gun. This prescription has nothing to do with rationing the RKBA; there is no prior restraint in this proposal.

  4. avatar Omer Baker says:

    This is politics?

    THIS IS SPARTA!!!

    Oh, wait. No, you’re right. It is politics. My bad.

  5. avatar Tyrone says:

    #whateverittakes to never give up my guns.

  6. avatar GunGeek says:

    Would be helpful to list what’s been accepted as “good reason”. Particularly when “good reason” in one area is not accepted in another.

    We seem to have wide variance from county to county within states – notably in CA. And before readers begin crucifying CA, I seem to recall TTAG readers describing inconsistencies in other states too.

    1. avatar Geoff PR says:

      Emily Miller of The Washington Times and the local DC Fox affiliate got her carry permit and outlined the ordeal:

      ” I was shocked to hear that I am the 15th person the police chief approved for a carry permit.

      Why me?

      The approval letter made the reason clear. I was approved based on two different threats against me, which I had documented with police reports. These are my “special dangers.”

      The letter said that the police did not accept into consideration the terrorist threat against journalists because it is considered “general in nature.”

      I have only received preliminary approval. To get the permit, I have to take 18 hours of classes with an instructor certified by the police within 45 days. I’m taking the class, but my decision whether or not to carry a gun in public is a personal one and will remain private.”

      http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2015/02/johannes-paulsen/draft-reviewemily-miller-receives-dc-carry-license-infernal-regions-endure-cold-spell/

      1. avatar PhilWilson says:

        I would be willing to guess that for most of the 21%, good cause involved being connected to or donating to Democrat politicians.

      2. avatar GunGeek says:

        Thanks Geoff!

        Maybe I can get some death threats by advertising on Craig’s List. Should be easier than setting up a personal protection company.

      3. avatar Bob Sempre says:

        “I have only received preliminary approval. To get the permit, I have to take 18 hours of classes with an instructor certified by the police within 45 days. I’m taking the class, but my decision whether or not to carry a gun in public is a personal one and will remain private.”

        Why 45 days? How did they, pray tell, come up with 45 days?? Maybe the answer is to make the requester jump through the additional hoop, and hope that they give up. Most of us have jobs. So we have to let our bosses know that we have to take some time off to get training. Sheesh, next thing DC will request that the class be conducted on full moon on a Thursday.

  7. avatar Cadeyrn says:

    For those who are more distant from DC politics, there’s been an interesting dynamic in the last couple of weeks. There’s been a lot of mayhem in Southeast during the long hot summer. “The D.C. homicide rate is up 43 percent in 2015 thus far, compared with the same period in 2014. To date, 105 people have been killed. D.C. police made 61 murder arrests so far this year while closing 44 of this year’s 105 murder cases”.

    Cathy Lanier, the police chief, tried to do the responsible thing and deploy “all hands” canceling vacations and leave, moving officers out from their desks and into the streets to start to, you know, actually fight the crime. These programs have been very effective in the past with a measurable drop in crime of 10% or more during the all-hands periods.

    The police union was outraged and called a vote. They got 11,500 officers to vote no confidence in their Chief. DC has Police-Union-Releases-Result-of-No-Confidence-Vote-on-Lanier-323410801.html

    That little gem ought to get people thinking. DC is only 68 square miles, including almost 7 square miles of water. It is hands-down the most heavily policed area in the nation ranking number 1 in all cities nationwide with 6.53 officers per 1000 residents and there are only about 580k residents. http://www.smartpolicinginitiative.com/library-and-multimedia-resources/top-101-cities-highest-number-police-officers . For comparison, Pittsburg gets by with just 2.68 officers per 1000.

    But the police don’t seem to want to do their job. It might be dangerous to actually go out and arrest criminals and solve murders. Who knows what they might accomplish if they actually tried? They might even move the homicide closure rate up above 50% if they work really, really hard.

    1. avatar Joe R. says:

      They might have to perp walk the senate, they don’t have a true 21% approval rating either.

      FU(D).C.

      Everyone we send there’s broken.

      We DON’T all “want to be led” we keep sending fresh MF’s there to give you the message that we don’t want you trying to “lead” us either. We know you’ve thought of a million other ways to rob us since Rostenkowski. You’re wet POS. And the blue has infected most of you.

    2. avatar Geoff PR says:

      “But the police don’t seem to want to do their job.”

      The police have LEARNED from their law enforcement brothers in Baltimore what happens when cops ‘do their jobs’.

      It’s been in the news recently… seen it?

      The criminals have learned the cops aren’t interested in sticking their necks out when their political masters will happily throw them to the dogs.

      Crime, murder and carnage are up. And something tells me the current administration is just fine with that…

    3. avatar Anon in CT says:

      I’m curious as to whether that stat includes all the specialized police agencies is DC like the Capital Police, Secret Service Uni Division, Park Police, etc.

      1. avatar M J Johnson says:

        I suspect it does. I was born, and rasied, ans spent most of my life living in DC. Everywhere I went in that town, I ran into some kind of police from some agency or another. To the day, I call it Cop Central.

    4. avatar neiowa says:

      up 43 percent in 2015 thus far

      Duh. Of course murder is up. The activist courts forced DC to allow guns in the hands of untrained civilians.

      (that’s sarcasm Martha)/

  8. avatar davidx says:

    That commie witch and the other Stalinoid minions never had/have any intention whatsoever of doing the right thing; these people are of the mind that if a legal decision goes against them, why, simply keep hammering on it in the courts…OR…simply don’t obey or enforce it.

    And what’s with all the military-type ribbons she’s sporting? Plus, of course, the four-star-general stars on her shoulders…what a joke.

    What’s needed are some citizen lawsuits and a massive media campaign and viral net shenanigans.

    1. avatar Billy-bob says:

      “My God, it’s full of stars.”

    2. avatar Joe R. says:

      Then sh_t-can the courts

  9. avatar SteveInCO says:

    What happened to the court order to begin issuing permits RTF Now?

    1. avatar davidx says:

      You must not have got the memo, sir; our lords temporal only obey court decisions and orders that they feel like obeying and enforcing. If not, not. And what are we gonna do about it? This sort of response goes right to the top, with Dear Leader Barry Soetero’s “executive orders” and refusal to enforce or secure our borders.

      1. avatar SteveInCO says:

        I figured as much.

      2. avatar styrgwillidar says:

        Yep. Same thing in California after the Peruta ruling. San Diego county sheriff refused, waited for someone else to appeal and get an En Banc hearing. Which has been heard but the decision hasn’t been made/released yet. I’m sure even if the En Banc ruling tosses the shall issue, they’ll do something like DC’s doing in putting a torturous process in place to make it as hard/discouraging as possible.

        1. avatar GunGeek says:

          Yup – California Penal Code §26150. Penal Code §26150 requires CCW applicants to show proof that “good cause exists for issuance of the license.” [Subsection (a)(2)]

          Here’s the SDSO link https://www.sdsheriff.net/licensing/ccw.html

          Still not sure what constitutes “good cause”, but evidently “personal protection” isn’t. Yes, the Catch-22 exception is alive and well.

        2. avatar styrgwillidar says:

          Gun geek- issue in Peruta is the inequity in application of that clause. Many counties operate as shall-issue accepting self-defense as good cause, mostly northern counties. Most SoCal counties, and the counties around the San Fran area don’t accept it. Hence, just the politicians and their buddies and folks whose good cause is donating money to the sheriff’s re-election fund get approved for CCW.

        3. avatar GunGeek says:

          Amen. Proof point: donors to Santa Clara CA Sheriff Lori Smith got CCWs. At least until an investigative report was published. Meanwhile San Jose PD response time exceeds 3X target response objective for Priority 2 calls. Massive departure after poorly conceived pension & benefits roll back passed by voters.

          In fairness, SJPD does meet Priority 1 response targets and they seems to do a good job with their limited resources in capturing bad guys & girls. Few not charged & convicted due to poor PD procedures, so I give them high marks.

    2. avatar Mark N. says:

      The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals stayed the trial court order pending appeal.Hence, the “good cause” requirement remains in effect. The other lawsuit attacking the new restrictive ordinance is wending its way through the courts as well.

  10. avatar Accur81 says:

    The natural progression of “gun safety” means you can’t carry any gun at any time not expressedly approved by your government overseers.

    1. avatar Joe R. says:

      Gov’t?

      You mean your a_ _ hole neighbors needing jobs?

  11. avatar CLarson says:

    Why isn’t a judge throwing the bureaucrats in jail for not following the constitution and issuing those licenses to everyone? I hear it’s all the rage now. Oh I forgot, “rule of law” is arbitrary bullshit.

    1. avatar Mark N. says:

      The trial court order overturning the “good cause” requirement has been stayed by a higher court, so there is no violation of any law for which a judge could hold someone in contempt. Beyond that, judges don’t throw anyone in jail unless a prosecutor brings charges (as if), a judge or jury convicts, and a sentence is ordered. Not one of these requirements has is likely to occur.

      1. avatar Geoff PR says:

        He can hit ’em with contempt of court, no?

        It worked on that clerk…

        1. avatar CLarson says:

          Exactly.

    2. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Some of the bureaucrats involved are the police. Regardless of what any judge *says*, he/she is not going out to personally arrest anybody. He is going to send the police. If they refuse, or forget, his order means nothing.

  12. what don’t they understand about about “shall not infringe.” mrpresident2016.com

  13. avatar Marcus (Aurelius) Payne says:

    I wonder if “The Supreme Court says you have to” is a good thing to put down as a reason for applying.

    1. avatar Dirk Diggler says:

      given how fugly Chief Lanier is and the recent no confidence vote from her troops, I wonder if stating you are too scared to ask her to be with you 24/7 counts as well?

  14. avatar SD3 says:

    Jesus, only 206 people applied?!? What the hell is wrong with those sheep? Oh wait…

    1. avatar Mark says:

      My first thoughts too. Not sure which is worse. Only a 21% approval or the fact that only 206 in a city of 580K applied. POG in DC need to step up. Get it on record that they said “No” to your constitutional (and court ordered) right.

    2. avatar DevilNuts says:

      Anyone who supports the 2nd in the DC area doesn’t bother living near DC. They move just south of the Northern Virginia liberal bastions of Arlington and Alexandria and commute in to the cesspool of liberals that is DC/ NOVA.

      1. avatar GunGeek says:

        What about MD counties?

        1. avatar Aaron says:

          DC modelled their permitting regime on MD’s.

          You have a better chance of being hit by a meteorite than getting a CCW in MD.

    3. avatar Chip Bennett says:

      Why have only 200 people applied? Read Emily Miller’s book; you’ll understand why.

      The application process itself is designed to be the barrier to entry.

    4. avatar Aaron says:

      I’m pretty sure that the DC application process is about as user friendly as low-crawling a quarter mile over broken glass.

      Unless you are a big-time donor to the dems.

    5. avatar Curtis in IL says:

      These things take time.
      When Illinois passed its concealed carry law, I knew nothing of handguns. I previously had no reason to own one. It took months of research, talking with gun-owning friends and shooting their guns when I could, before I reached a decision on what to buy. Then I needed time to practice with it before I took the live fire test.

      No doubt there are plenty non-gun-owning DC residents who would like to carry, but they have no idea where to start. And they don’t have a network of friends to help them, as I did. It’s an expensive process, and even those with the means to pay for it are proceeding with caution. Honestly, if I lived in DC, I would wait for the court battles to play out before making any moves.

  15. avatar Gman says:

    “But then it came back. Who knows, really. This is politics.”
    No sir, it is not. This is tyranny.

  16. avatar Libertarian says:

    And more off places (realy no joke) as illinois ………….

    http://www.handgunlaw.us/states/dc.pdf

    http://www.handgunlaw.us/states/illinois.pdf but this is bullshit too

  17. avatar Pg2 says:

    Anytime a permit is required, it ceases to be a right and becomes a privilege. And while 21% have been approved for this privilege, I can only imagine what restrictions accompany this privilege.

  18. avatar Tom RKBA says:

    All DC’s gun laws are unconstitutional under the Second Amendment. Their carry permit is a very restrictive contract with the city. Carry is nearly restricted to the street only; even then lawful carriers have to avoid certain streets. Carriers are limited to two full reloads or 20 rounds, whichever is less (this is up from 10). The entire scheme is insane and the courts are playing patty-cake. WE COWARDLY GUN OWNERS ARE DOING NOTHING ABOUT IT (writing letters and complaining do nothing–we must demand our right). Adam Kokesh was CORRECT–we must make the demand.

  19. avatar uncommon_sense says:

    What is the story with Police Chief Lanier’s four stars on the shoulder of her uniform and all the “fruit salad” on her chest?

    If that doesn’t scream “military”, I don’t know what does. Doesn’t that then mean that our police forces are a standing army and thus in violation of The Posse Comitatus Act?

    1. avatar rick3 says:

      I was looking more at the “crazy-eyes” expression on her face!

  20. avatar Mark A says:

    That would be even lower if the previous “good reason” decision hadn’t forced them to issue a number of them. They slammed the book shut after that and haven’t approved one since.

  21. avatar Ing says:

    You want to get married to a same-sex partner? Show me “good cause.” (What does good cause look like? I’ll let you know when I see it.)

    It works when self-defense is at stake, but deny a marriage license, and some federal judge will chuck you in the clink.

    I guess some rights are more equal than others.

    1. avatar Aaron says:

      funny how unenumerated rights – such as marriage – have more weight than a certain explicitly numerated right.

  22. avatar Jim R says:

    21% is a lot higher than I expected. I expected the number to be in the single digits. Not just single-digit percentage, but single digit number of approved permits.

    1. avatar Aaron says:

      me, too.

      but whatcha wanna bet that 80-90% of the lucky 21% are DC elite, powerbrokers, and big donors?

  23. avatar Aaron says:

    Everyone should have to demonstrate “good reason” to speak freely. Or practice their religious beliefs. Or vote. Or marry. Or be free from unreasonable searches and siezures.

  24. avatar GunGeek says:

    I miss the good old days of DC’s crack addict mayor, Marion Barry. So much easier with the best government money can buy.

Write a Comment

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

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email