BREAKING: District of Columbia’s ‘May Issue’ Carry Law Struck Down

[Article updated since its initial publication.]

A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of the Appeals for the D.C. Circuit has just issued a permanent injunction against the District’s “may issue” firearms licensing scheme, holding that the Second Amendment’s “core lawful purpose” of “self-defense” included the right to carry a firearm beyond the home. The opinion, written by Judge Thomas B. Griffith, held in part:

[C]arrying [a firearm] beyond the home, even in populated areas, even without special need, falls within the [Second] Amendment’s coverage, indeed within its core….

[A]t a minimum, the Amendment’s core must protect carrying given the risks and needs typical of law-abiding citizens. That is a right that most D.C. residents can never exercise, by the law’s very design. In this way, the District’s regulation completely prohibits most residents from exercising the constitutional right to bear arms as viewed in the light cast by history and Heller I [which established that the Second Amendment protected an individual right.] And under Heller I, “complete prohibition[s] of Second Amendment rights are always invalid….

The matter before the D.C. Circuit involved two different lawsuits challenging the District’s may issue regime: Wrenn v. D.C., which was backed by Alan Gottlieb’s Second Amendment Foundation, and Grace v. D.C. which was backed by the LGBT gun rights organization, Pink Pistols. Both plaintiffs had sought an injunction against enforcing the District’s “good reason” requirement for the issuance of firearms carry licenses.

A lower court judge denied Wrenn’s request last March, but a different judge granted Grace’s request (but stayed the order pending appeal.) Since both Wrenn and the District of Columbia appealed, and both cases involved the same issues, the D.C. Circuit combined the two matters and adjudicated them simultaneously.

Both Wrenn and Gracie argued that strict scrutiny (the highest and most demanding form of judicial review) should be the standard followed by the court here, while the District argued that the lesser intermediate scrutiny should be applied. The D.C. Circuit did not say it was applying strict scrutiny…and yet, it disparaged the lesser standard in its ruling:

[T]he good-reason law is necessarily a total ban on most D.C. residents’ right to carry a gun in the face of ordinary self-defense needs, where these residents are no more dangerous with a gun than the next law-abiding citizen. We say “necessarily” because the law destroys the ordinarily situated citizen’s right to bear arms not as a side effect of applying other, reasonable regulations (like those upheld in Heller II [which upheld D.C.’s firearms registration scheme] and Heller III [which upheld fees, fingerprinting, and training requirement for carry licenses, but struck down other parts of D.C.’s gun control regime]), but by design: it looks precisely for needs “distinguishable” from those of the community. So we needn’t pause to apply tiers of scrutiny, as if strong enough showings of public benefits could save this destruction of so many commonly situated D.C. residents’ constitutional right to bear common arms for self-defense in any fashion at all.

Bans on the ability of most citizens to exercise an enumerated right would have to flunk any judicial test that was appropriately written and applied, so we strike down the District’s law here apart from any particular balancing test.

The dissenting judge, Karen LeCraft Henderson, argued that the “core” of the Second Amendment was solely limited to “the right to possess arms for self-defense in the home” (emphasis added). She cited a list of decisions from sibling Circuits (not binding precedent on the D.C. Circuit, of course) to back up this claim.

But as the majority pointed out, none of the cases cited said that there was no right to bear arms in public, only that the right to bear arms might be subject to more regulation than it is in the home. The majority dismissed that assertion rather easily, though, noting that “the fact that the need for self-defense is more pressing in the home doesn’t mean that self-defense at home is the only right at the Amendment’s core.”

Judge Henderson then tried her hand at historical analysis, claiming that, historically, the states have disagreed over the extent of the right to keep and bear arms. As this author has stated in the past, however, the historical existence of state laws restricting the individual right to keep and bear arms before the Court held the Amendment incorporated to the several states in 2011 shouldn’t inform our understanding of the scope of the Second Amendment’s protections any more than the fact that New Hampshire and Massachusetts had established churches and religious tests for public officials well into the 19th Century (before the First Amendment was incorporated to the states) informs our understanding of the scope of the First Amendment.

Since the District does issue non-resident licenses, will the citizens of the 50 states be able to apply for a D.C. carry license tomorrow? No. This was a three judge panel ruling — the District could (and likely will) ask for the entire Circuit, en banc, to hear the decision.

They could also petition the Supreme Court for certiorari, although given how mum SCOTUS has been on the Second Amendment lately, it would be a safer bet to go for the former. The courts being what they are, I imagine they’d grant a temporary stay on the order until those avenues have been exhausted.

As always, stay tuned.


  1. avatar None says:

    Suck it, Trebeck.

    1. avatar Jon in CO says:

      I’ll take [modern] swords for $200.

      1. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

        “That’s s words.”

    2. avatar Cal says:

      We did NOT want his until Ginsburg or Kennedy was out. If this fast tracks to SCOTUS, since Kennedy is 99% certain to support may issue, we will end up with MORE stated adopting may issue

      1. avatar barnbwt says:

        You know, except for the steady and increasing diversion of states as far as gun rights go. Practically no pro-gun states are becoming more hostile, and practically no anti-gun states are relenting in the slightest (voluntarily).

        And since these realities extend to the House & Senate representation, it is unlikely-to-impossible for significant gun legislation (pro or anti) to pass for the foreseeable future. The SCOTUS will continue to deny their necessary duty, which is to issue *convincing* opinions (even if it means adopting stances they may not personally desire) on such controversial topics in order to defuse disagreements & cement their legitimacy as logical arbiters. The high court will continue to fade in relevance on this particular issue, giving even more room for states to become radical. That means there is no safety valve on the situation, and states will naturally continue to Balkanize on this issue, until reaching the only logical conclusion.

        It could all be avoided if Ginsburg & Kennedy (who despite being radical leftists, are supposedly not morons as far as law is concerned unlike their other caucus-mates) would just swallow their stupid pride, and do their damn job, and choose the side of the argument that can be logically supported by the available evidence. Kennedy did so in Heller, and as flawed & cowardly as that ruling was, it truly did wonders to reinvigorate a core area of American Law that had withered on the vine for a full century. If the liberals could get over their stupid gun-cooties for even a minute, this issue would be settled and done, and everyone involved would have a lot less to complain about, and a lot more respect for the system of gun-laws that remain as well as the courts (what little respect is due)

  2. avatar CueBaller says:

    Good news!

    1. avatar California Richard says:

      “Good” news indeed.. thank you oh powerful and beneficent government for throwing us pleebs scraps of freedom. /sarc

    2. avatar DDay says:

      But remember, the democrats changed the filibuster rules in the senate so they could pack the DC circuit court of appeals. If they appeal enbanc, this may be a factor.

  3. avatar Ralph says:

    The DC Circuit is the same one that decided Heller in favor of 2A. Griffith was one of the three judges on the Heller panel, and he voted right. Henderson dissented in both cases.

    1. avatar Cliff H says:

      There seem to be two or three SCOTUS seats in play in the relatively near future. With any luck we can reap the rewards of Circuit Court judges jockeying for a place on Trump’s short list?

      1. avatar Ralph says:

        I sure hope so.

      2. avatar John in TX (Was CT) says:

        With Trump’s current troubles, and the possibly looming constitutional crisis, there’s no chance in hell that any left-leaning justice retires any time soon.

        I think in this case, we gotta play with the hand we were dealt.

        1. avatar CarlosT says:

          Well, Ginsburg and Breyer are both fairly elderly, so the reaper may ultimately have a say in this. That’s especially true if, by some miracle, Trump gets a second term.

        2. avatar Rattlerjake says:

          Just our luck, Disney has an animatronic Ginsburg and Kennedy ready to replace the real ones! And they are preprogrammed to dissent on 2nd Amendment everything!

  4. avatar CK says:

    Very exciting! Although I wonder if this means I’ll have to buy a gun in the District to be able to carry in the District. That would be annoying…

    1. avatar Other Tom in Oregon says:

      In certain neighborhoods I hear they’re easier to buy then books so you should be set.

      1. avatar Norincojay says:

        It’s easier for teens to get GLOCKs than books or a computer. I’m not sure if you’re a teen?

    2. avatar Alan Esworthy says:

      Heh! I hope not, but even if it does, I happen to own a Browning Hi-Power that I purchased at D.C.’s Atlas Sporting Goods in 1973. I even have the bill of sale and necessary permit. I left the city when it got so-called home rule and the council immediately banned handguns, except that existing permits were grandfathered. Although I had the right documents, the fine print said that instead of the previous requirement that pistols holding more than 12 rounds had to modified to achieve that limit, the new wording required the modification to be “permanent”. My mag mod didn’t qualify and no one could ever figure out how to modify a mag-fed semi-auto permanently to limit the capacity.

    3. avatar Mark N. says:

      You cannot buy a gun in D.C.–legally any way–since there are no gun stores in D.C. There is one part-time FFL who does transfers only (and he is getting old) located in the same building as the D.C. Police. You have to buy a gun in Virginia or Maryland and have it shipped to him to complete the transfer. If you already own a gun, I assume that you will be required to register it with the D.C. police, a process that requires you to bring the gun to them for “inspection.”

      1. avatar James says:

        Josh Sugarmann of the Violence Policy Center’s FFL is valid until 03/2020. Wouldn’t it be delicious to purchase a Desert Eagle from him? VPC is in NW close to Dupont Circle, ph 202- 822-8200,

      2. avatar DC says:

        “You cannot buy a gun in D.C.–legally any way–since there are no gun stores in D.C. There is one part-time FFL who does transfers only (and he is getting old) located in the same building as the D.C. Police. You have to buy a gun in Virginia or Maryland and have it shipped to him to complete the transfer. If you already own a gun, I assume that you will be required to register it with the D.C. police, a process that requires you to bring the gun to them for “inspection.””

        Mark that is wrong on a couple of counts.
        1) For owned long guns and handguns, if they are on the DC approved list (ie the Maryland list, which is way larger, about five times larger, and more inclusive than for example California or Massachusetts) they don’t inspect anymore with test firings, they want to look just at serial number since no FFL is involved.
        2) for new long guns you either buy at a retail place in maryland or Va or buy anywhere on the internet and sent it to an FFL in Virginia or Md, you don’t need to bring gun into MPD. If it is not on the long gun exclusion list (eg ar-15 is excluded, ruger mini ranch is not). within 25 miles of DC there are a couple of dozen gun stores and FFLS. You do need to go twice since they need to fill out the DC registration application at the store, take it to MPD and then go back to the store with the approve one to pick it up.

        Neither of those two case require going through DC’s FFL or paying that FFL’s $125 fee, but rather the FLL fee inbuilt into the retail purchase in a Va gun sotre, or if an internet buy a negotiated fee of about $35.

        3) for new handgun you do have to go through DC FFL and pay his $125. As far as Sykes (the FFL), if he does retire there are a couple of guys who are out of state FFLs who will move an office into DC when he retires. But keep in mind that is really $90 over normal fees, not $125 over, since you’d be paying an FFL fee somewhere. And with internet buying you are paying very competitive prices.

        So bringing in your owned guns you don’t pay any major fees. If you are buying a new 10/22 at a dicks 9 miles outside of DC (or any new or used long gun through an FFL) you won’t pay any DC FFL, and you will not be bringing in the firearm into MPD since they trust the serial number is accurate if certified by an FFL anywhere, and have not ballistic tested either rounds or casings for ten years.

        Where DC’s FFL costs blow is new inexpensive handguns as the FFL costs can be near 50%. A new $250 rifle has no DC FLL but a new $250 pistol does.

        it does scuk to bring in an owned but unregistered long gun to the center of DC to the MPD firesrms office. I did it once and was let’s just say more than uncomfortable. I then realized that for $30 I could do it though a Va FFL without ever bringing it into MPD as what they want is some attestment to the serial number by an authority. any FFL is fine.

        BTW I am not supporting DCs gun laws, just explaining them — having registered a few guns there. I encourage anyone in DC who is a good guy to get a firearm, while you are correct to resent and protest the laws, the more owners he have the better

        FYI we have rolled back lots of parts of the law post heller. A few years ago we pushed to get rid of re-registration, some aspects of the ammo laws, and some other PITAs

    4. avatar Geoff says:

      There are no gun stores in D.C. that sell guns. One (if he is still in business) that will handle transfers.

  5. avatar Geoff PR says:

    Maxine Waters and the rest of DC’s pearl-clutchers are gonna… well, you know.

    That bill recently introduced in Congress to make DC recognize other sates’s carry permits now has wind at its back…

    *Snicker* 🙂

    1. avatar Kenneth G Maiden says:

      Yep, LMAO on a grand scale. Hope Schumer, MaxiPad, Pelosi will have a stroke like reaction over this.

    2. avatar Chier says:

      Madame President Maxine is gonna fix this with an EO in late January 2021.

  6. avatar Sam I Am says:

    The DC decision is a minor victory because it applies only to one circuit. But a “victory” nonetheless. The dissenting opinion will likely prove troublesome in subsequent appeals in DC, or elsewhere. Neither Heller 1, nor 2 clearly defines the second amendment as inviolate. Both Hellers leave ambiguity in their wake, rather than a definitive reading and ruling that 2A is as near absolute as can be constructed without including active criminals. There remains much adventure (and mischief) ahead.

    1. avatar Bruce says:

      I think that one big weakness in the dissent (besides depending more on liberal Circuits than the Supreme Court) was her statement essentially that the 2nd Amdt mostly/primarily applied in the home. But as the majority (along with the Heller I majority) pointed out, the 2nd Amdt doesn’t just protect the right to “keep” arms, but similarly to “bear” them. It protects, by its wording, the right to “keep and bear” arms, putting the protection of the latter on an equal footing with the former. Simply put, you “keep” arms in your house, and “bear” them outside such. You have to, essentially, figuratively stand on your head to do, as this judge did in her dissent, to find an inferior right to self defense outside the home, than in it.

    2. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

      The D.C. Circuit is considered the most important/influential/prestigious circuit. I haven’t read the case yet and will get back after I do, but this looks to be a pretty big victory.

      1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

        It will be a pretty big victory if it stands: I am concerned about a possible demand for an en-banc decision … and whether an en-banc decision would reverse.

      2. avatar Sam I Am says:

        The D.C. Circuit is considered the most important/influential/prestigious circuit.

        The subject is “guns”. I cannot see the courts of the anti-gun venues being influenced by this ruling.

        1. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

          If the “but guns” argument works for someone, the other side is never going get through to that someone.

          It’s still an argument to throw in their face.

    3. avatar barnbwt says:

      This victory is huge. It’s hard for those outside the Beltway to understand just how Plutocratic and distant that place has become; our leadership apparatus at the federal level truly is an island unto itself at this point. This victory directly effects each and every person in our federal government who can do something to help or hurt us as far as gun policy. Moreover, it directly applies every other person those leaders have to interact with. Maxine Waters will have to live with any passerby she encounters potentially possessing a lawful concealed firearm.

      If the anti-gun set “perceives” this possibility as a threat and tones down their rhetoric out of fear, I won’t complain. After all, we all know there is nothing threatening at all by simple lawful carry (open or concealed), and I for one am through with giving the feelings & perceptions of these people any consideration at all. After all, they gave no consideration to our basic civil rights or personal safety when they denied these freedoms after gaining power.

      I still think we’ll see an en banc that refutes this ruling with some moth-eaten tissue-paper arguments, but only because SCOTUS has allowed that kind of behavior to dominate the gun issue since Heller


      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        If this ruling is a “loss” for anti-gun types, expect them to double-down on their efforts, not retreat.

        Expect DC to ignore the ruling, as there will be no penalty for doing so.

      2. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

        I’d say this victory isn’t huge until your last paragraph is proven wrong. Before that, I’d say it’s only a big victory.

        If you’re proven right, it’s a defeat.

  7. avatar Mouth Breather says:

    This website has the most ridiculous and hyperbolic articles with absolutely no detail or context. Everything here is written by a retarded 3rd grader.

    A panel of judges ruled, not the full circuit.

    The District has 30 days to appeal to the full court, aka en banc.

    DC will not start handing out licenses.

    There are 8 Democratic appointees and 9 Republican.

    The odds that this survives an en banc review are slim.

    Please stop treating everything as if it’s the next coming of Jesus and that you’re going to get your DC carry permit tomorrow. You look like an idiot because you probably are.

    1. avatar Johannes Paulsen says:

      Thanks for reading!

      1. avatar mike oregon says:

        Heh heh, nice

      2. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

        I appreciate the classy way you handled that one Mr. Paulsen. Also thanks for including a link to the decision. I hate having to find another article to get to the decision.

      3. avatar strych9 says:

        “Thanks for reading!”

        *snicker* That’s cold. I LOL’ed.

    2. avatar Ted Unlis says:

      It’s so easy to differentiate which pro 2A topics on TTAG really wear on the last raw nerve of the radical anti-gun left; the professional liberal troll who bird dogs TTAG comes out from under her leftist bridge and commences to post comments under one or more the several identities she uses, and of course she remains convinced she is much too clever for anyone to possibly detect. Too funny!

    3. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      Mouth Breather,

      Since you cast the first stone:

      — The Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia did indeed rule on a case.
      — Their ruling is binding and precedent.
      — Their ruling has the force of law IMMEDIATELY unless the court allowed some time period for the District of Columbia police to adjust their process.
      — And the ruling requires that the District of Columbia police eliminate any consideration/requirement of “special need” from their process.

      Thus, the article is indeed accurate … which means your statement is not accurate.

      Having said all that, sure, some entity could require that the entire District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals rule en banc and issue a stay until that happens. Nevertheless, that has not happened yet.

      1. avatar Mouth Breather says:


        Sure – and Peruta was binding precedent too – until it was overruled by the full 9th circuit.

        Precedent isn’t complicated – it doesn’t mean shit until DC gives up after a loss. Furthermore, the “precedent” is irrelevant outside of DC unless the supreme court feels compelled to settle the differences between circuits.

        Of course, this assumes that DC won’t ask for en banc review – they will. I’m willing to bet they’ll get it too along with an emergency stay of the panel’s ruling.

        To top it off, calling you naive for believing that DC will immediately start issuing permits is kind of me. I have bridges to sell you if you think DC won’t slow walk permits until either the en banc review or a total and complete failure of their appeal for an emergency stay.

        Of course, the morons here can’t see beyond today and have truly rose colored glasses.

        Remember the Peruta precedent? How about Woollard at the district court?

        My statements were entirely accurate – they just make you sad. You have no idea how hard DC will fight issuing a single permit under “shall issue.”

        Remember when they had 3 days of unrestricted carry? Yeah they got a stay of that ruling too.

        I think this earned everyone the unfortunate moniker of “moran.”

        1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

          Mouth Breather,

          I agree that:
          — someone will probably demand en-banc review and get it
          — someone will request a stay if en-banc review is granted
          — en-banc review could very well reverse
          — D.C. police will do everything possible to delay/interfere

          And all of those points are a different discussion. This article is accurate. Stop saying otherwise.

          Note: I am just as disgusted as you are with the way that our police, prosecutors, judges, courts, mayors, legislatures, and governors act contrary to what is good, decent, and right — which necessarily includes violating the U.S. Constitution and respective state constitutions.

        2. avatar Ted Unlis says:

          Too funny! 2016 ended badly and 2017 began and has continued to be a rough year for liberals with no relief for their butt hurt in sight.

          Guess what Mouth, no matter how this particular appellate case pans out for lawful CC in DC, it’s only one of many battles to come and since Hillary lost, there’ll be no more radical liberal SCOTUS Justices appointed any time in the foreseeable future. Trump will get al least one more SCOTUS nomination and maybe 2 or 3 more.

          All the progressive liberal democrats hopes for aggressive national gun bans and restrictions are dashed for at least the next couple of decades if not longer. Elections have consequences, deal with it LOSER!

        3. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “…there’ll be no more radical liberal SCOTUS Justices appointed any time in the foreseeable future. Trump will get al least one more SCOTUS nomination and maybe 2 or 3 more.”

          Pence is not a rock-ribbed conservative. The political establishment is fighting to eliminate the outsider. The political establishment will combine to impeach Trump, and go back to business as usual for the ruling class. Pence will appoint, and the political establishment will confirm, “moderates” to the SC.

        4. avatar Dave in SoCal says:

          Mouth Breather,

          You do know they sell barbless tampons, don’t you?

          Might help to lower your anger level a bit.

          You’re welcome!

        5. avatar Sam I Am says:

          In truth, the district does not need to wait for any further court action. DC will continue the “hardly issue” process until federal marshals arrest the entire city council, and a federal court convicts them all. There is zero, as in zero, penalty for ignoring federal courts. Even fines are borne by the residents, not the political clan.

        6. avatar barnbwt says:

          The question is not whether Pence is conservative, but Trump. He could totally order marshals, or even the frigging National Guard, oversee the initial issuance of permits (I always envisioned it being the San-Fran Nine walking past protesters & the governor to buy M4’s with 30 round magazines) in compliance with the court order. He could demand congress pass some laws to preempt the Districts presumed authority (not even federal laws; congress can pass laws to govern DC).

          As far as additional justices, I’m not worried. Trump had practically no part in selecting Gorsuch, he was presented the man’s name by the Heritage Foundation, and they certainly won’t be going anywhere (though whether they will promote such an apparently legit conservative again is a good question). Apart from that, his confirmation goes to McConnell who finally stuck his neck out of his shell long enough to perform one of the most easy & basic operations of government (it’s beyond laughable that arrogant Dems thought they could freeze Trump out of any picks for four years, or ‘Bork’ a man with Gorsuch’s service record & recent popularity with the senate). I will give Trump credit for not screwing it up and randomly choosing someone from his anti-gun NYC businessman past, like has been the norm for many of his *actual* personal selections.

        7. avatar Sam I Am says:

          With Pence ascended, it will not matter which think tank proposes SC candidates. The ruling cabal (Repubs and Demoncrats are the ruling elite/establishment) will revert to type. Pence is a wonderful person (from reports), but he is establishment. They all go to the same schools, study under the same professors, frequent the same luncheons and dinners, receive honorariums from the same class of donors. Trump is the oddity. The only reason nothing is getting done in congress is the establishment (i.e. both parties) do not want Trump to be successful. For Trump to succeed would mean the nation does not need professional, lifetime politicians to effectively run the country.

        8. avatar IdahoBoy says:



    4. avatar DaveW says:

      “Everything here is written by a retarded 3rd grader.”

      Good one!! Yep. “You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time.” However, you can, as you just did, make a fool of yourself any time.

      Like they say, make a civil statement, start a civil war.

    5. avatar Bruce says:

      Wonder why you think that a 9-8 Republican majority is going to reverse this decision, esp in view of the Supreme Court repeatedly using the D.C. Circuit cases to make statements on the 2nd Amdt.

      And, yes, the recent attempted assasination of Republican Congressmen will factor in – several have stated that they would have been armed that day if not for the restrictive D.C. Concealed Carry law.

      1. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

        “Wonder why you think that a 9-8 Republican majority is going to reverse this decision, esp in view of the Supreme Court repeatedly using the D.C. Circuit cases to make statements on the 2nd Amdt.” – There is actually some good reason to think that. Basically since Justice Bork got borked, the best Republicans have been able to do (until this administration) if they don’t have a filibuster proof majority, is nominate and confirm “moderates.” During that same time, Democrats have nominated and had confirmed hardcore leftists.

        “And, yes, the recent attempted assassination of Republican Congressmen will factor in – several have stated that they would have been armed that day if not for the restrictive D.C. Concealed Carry law.” – My first thought on seeing the headline was that this might be a judicial attempt to appease congress so as not to have them move on national reciprocity. I have no evidence for this; it’s just a thought.

        1. avatar uncommon_sense says:


          I had the exact same thought that this court decision could be an attempt to get Congress to back-off their national reciprocity bill.

        2. avatar Johannes Paulsen says:

          @uncommon not just Hudson’s national reciprocity bill, don’t forget that there is a bill pending to force DC specifically to recognize licenses from all 50 states.

        3. avatar dollup15 says:

          “Basically since Justice Bork got borked, the best Republicans have been able to do (until this administration) if they don’t have a filibuster proof majority, is nominate and confirm ‘moderates.'”

          Huh? Justices Thomas and Alito are “moderates”? (Both were appointed post-Bork, and neither with filibuster-proof majorities in the Senate.) What planet are you living on?

        4. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

          The one in which Kennedy and Souter had to be nominated and confirmed before Thomas could be confirmed by only two votes. One in which Roberts had to be nominated in order to get Alito. That’s two conservatives, two moderates, and a liberal.

          This is the first Congress in which the Republicans ratcheted up the partisanship of the nomination process by going nuclear on the Supreme Court filibuster. Every other escalation was done by Democrats, then kept by Republicans.

    6. avatar GS650G says:

      Exit through the gift shop!

    7. avatar CLARK ADAMS says:

      Why make personal attacks on someone, when just stating the facts will make your point?

      1. avatar GS650G says:

        Because he’s a troll.

    8. avatar DC says:

      Mouthbreather: “DC will not start handing out licenses.”

      Actually they will as there are hundreds of people who have completed the requirements and not filed yet while they were waiting for a ruling on reasonable cause.

      It is clear from your statements that you do not know this issue. The price for the DC training used to be $600, it has been $250 for some time, and hundreds and hundreds of us have completed it, and hundreds more have applied without ticking off reason while we waited for this. You do not know the subject.

    9. avatar painlessbob says:

      To your point that an en banc review will be dicey because “There are 8 Democratic appointees and [only] 9 Republican,” it’s worse than you think. Being nominated by a Repub means nothing. For example, the biased idiot dissenter in this review panel was appointed by Bush I.

      Extreme vetting is always needed.

      1. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

        “For example, the biased idiot dissenter in this review panel was appointed by Bush I.” – Thanks for that tidbit. I was curious, but didn’t look it up myself.

  8. avatar JohnnyIShootStuff says:

    But, does that core language in the ruling set the stage and the argument for reciprocity via the courts. If carrying a firearm for self defense, beyond the home, is the core of the 2A then there’s an argument that the right can’t be restricted to residents only.

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      We do love us some federal superiority over the states when it suits.

      Don’t we?

      1. avatar GS650G says:

        The USC Trumps the states in specific matters, all else there is the tenth.

        !See what I did there?!

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          USC is derivative of US Constitution. When it is not, it is either void, or takes superiority over its source.

          The issue here is not whether codified law operates properly, or at all. The issue is vapid inconsistency regarding our rights. POTG want the government to leave our rights alone, except when we want the government to overcome our rights…for our own private advantage.

          Legislation is legislation only. Attempting to do what the constitution cannot do (secure the RKABA) through legislation rather than amendment is no more legitimate than when states tried through legislation to destroy constitutionally prtected property rights of a major section of the country. Fall in love with legislation if you like, but you forfeit the high ground to complain when the next election results in overturning that legislation.

      2. avatar JohnnyIShootStuff says:

        If any state feels like the Constitution does not apply within its borders then they are free to try and leave the union. And some of them, like California, found that most U.S. citizens outside of the state are in favor of letting them leave.

        1. avatar Johannes Paulsen says:

          As long as an independent California republic agrees to take its share of the national debt, and pay for all federal property, respect the rights of private American property owners, provide over flight rates for American civil and military aircraft, provide privileged trade agreements with the United States, and pay annual tribute to the USA for providing a security umbrella.

          In that case, sure, I’m okay with secession.

      3. avatar DC says:

        @sam I am, on denial of explicit constitutional rights? Yes virtually everyone supports federal superiority.

        We know the gun control lobby keeps saying they want an equivalent to drivers licenses, but in fact they are lying. it is clear from their clinging to “may issue” just as their clinging to pre-heller bans means they want total bans

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “@sam I am, on denial of explicit constitutional rights? Yes virtually everyone supports federal superiority.”

          Point is, if mere legislation is agreeable when we like, mere legislation is valid when we don’t like. It is also tacit approval that legislation is on par with the constitution when addressing per-existing rights, strengthening or loosening those rights.

      4. avatar painlessbob says:

        It’s actually quite simple. There are specific authorities (jurisdictions) granted the federal government. Through constitutional incorporation, some rights secured by the federal constitution are binding on the states. Others are not.

        So, the variation you see as hypocrisy or inconsistency is merely a reflection of the fact that the lawfulness of a federal action against a state depends on what right or issue is being enforced.

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          Don’t see where the 14th limited the federal government at all. Under the 14th, Congress has power to pass whatever enabling legislation it likes, whether or not such legislation should require another amendment. There is nothing in the text that proclaims which rights are remaining in the states, nor proclaims that there is any federal limit in applying the full constitutional regulation of power to the states.

    2. avatar Bruce says:

      I don’t think so – as long as they go to a “shall issue” system that allows “out of state” licenses. The weird thing though about D.C. Here is that it involves pure 2nd Amdt analysis, instead of the maybe slightly modified 2nd Amdt incorporated by the 14th Amdt analysis that would apply if a state were involved. There is always an argument, with the states, that the 2nd is not completely incorporated by the 14th, allowing the states some additional leeway. This doesn’t apply to D.C., which suggests to me that they have less leeway to reject out of state permits that would otherwise qualify under their local laws (when suitably rewritten).

      We shall see.

    3. avatar MarkPA says:

      There are several States that are fairly liberal in issuing Resident CWPs but make little/no provision for Non-Resident CWPs. These States seem to be great places to move the cause forward one full step. On what basis could a State reasonably discriminate in favor of Residents and against Non-Residents? Such discrimination strikes me as unConstitutional. Getting a Circuit court to strike down such discrimination would move us a step closer to Shall-Issue.

      1. avatar painlessbob says:

        Oregon is the best example of this immoral and unconstitutional discrimination.

        Imagine a state saying, “Our resident gay people are okay, but if we catch you in any sort of gay relationship and you’re from out of state, we’ll throw you in prison.”

  9. avatar AFGus says:


  10. avatar Don says:

    What, again?

  11. avatar stateisevil says:

    How long will it last and what hoops/prohibited places will they add? These tyrants will not let this be the last word, as always, it will be overruled or otherwise made void in practice, just like Heller and handgun ownership in the District of Scum

  12. avatar Omer Baker says:

    So does this make DC constitutional carry?

    1. avatar Mark N. says:

      No. The district can still require permits, but they must be “shall issue.”

      1. avatar Omer Baker says:

        I meant immediately until a licensing scheme gets enacted.

  13. avatar 2Asux says:

    Replying under the notion of all the members of this blog that government is useless:

    This undertaking makes no sense, atall. If the only legitimate purpose of government is to protect its citizens, then neutering that ability upsets the proposition, entirely. If society, as represented by its governing body, cannot take reasonable steps to protect law abiding citizens, then the citizens not only lose collective protection, but also forfeit any “justification” for government, period.

    1. avatar Johannes Paulsen says:

      The legitimate purpose is to protect the *rights* of its citizens.

      1. avatar Bernard says:

        +1 Yes.

      2. avatar TexTed says:

        Paulsen hit it out of the park.

        1. avatar 2Asux says:

          “The legitimate purpose is to protect the *rights* of its citizens.”

          “Paulsen hit it out of the park.”

          Except the right to life of the full-born?

      3. avatar 2Asux says:

        “The legitimate purpose is to protect the *rights* of its citizens.”

        No “rights” are absolute. Protecting a “right” that results in harm to the people is a distortion of the rightful place and mission of government. People chose government. People expect government to protect them from the most dangerous forms of deadly weapons in possession of the criminal and irresponsible. People have a “right” to determine how society is to be organized, operated, and chartered.

        If the people are not held safe by government, government is failing the most basic of human rights, the right to life. The right to life can never be inferior to the right to harm.

        1. avatar Mr. Woodcock says:

          Sorry but that’s incorrect. The people determined that individual rights trumped a nanny/totalitarian state long ago. The 2A is about self reliance as much as it is about arms which is why leftist government tit suckers like yourself are threatened by it. It also appears from our recent election we still want to keep it that way. Until your sacred government God becomes omnipresent there is no “safe space”. You are your own first responder…Police are there to clean up the bodies and write reports. I guess years of brainwashing can’t undo the damage…sorry old bean.

          BTW how is Brexit going?

        2. avatar DC says:

          “Replying under the notion of all the members of this blog that government is useless”

          What? who says that? starting with a strawman makes you look like a fool.

          And your claim that any local city or state government has the right to end warrant protection, or end established tests for due process or responsible suspicion tests, end Miranda, and free speech is OK by you is very strange.

        3. avatar 2Asux says:

          “And your claim that any local city or state government has the right to end warrant protection, or end established tests for due process or responsible suspicion tests, end Miranda, and free speech is OK by you is very strange.”

          Have you gone completely ’round the bloody bend? Where have you visited, to reach such conclusions?

          Warrants are necessary to prevent your group from making midnight arrests of the dissenters.

          Due process keeps your lot from lodging false claims leading to dispossession of property, speech, protest, publication and so many other important rights and privileges.

          Miranda is the first line of defense from an oppressive police.

          The elements you sarcastically declare will “make us safer” are the epitome of protections government is charted to ensure.

          Without the protections you believe I would remove, your sympathisers would crush all dissent, and imprison the incorrigible resister.

      4. avatar painlessbob says:

        You make a critical distinction. Thank you.

    2. avatar Geoff PR says:

      “If society, as represented by its governing body, cannot take reasonable steps to protect law abiding citizens, then the citizens not only lose collective protection, but also forfeit any “justification” for government, period.”

      That’s kinda the *point* of our founding documents.

      Fear not, when national concealed carry soon becomes law, it will provide you excellent practice for working on your coping skills… 🙂

      1. avatar TexTed says:

        No it won’t. “2asux” is a brit, probably Piers Morgan, who doesn’t live under our laws. He is an outsider who only wants to undermine our self-rule.

        1. avatar 2Asux says:

          Have a care, eh?

          I am not Piers Morgan (but would like his fame and fortune).

          If I did not live here, why should I be spending so much time supporting Bernie Sanders and his policies (admittedly tougher since I was a campaign worker, and that income stream is barren)?

          I fully believe in self-determination, and self-rule. Where we are different is the destination of self-rule. It is important for the people to retain the right to vote politicians in or out, in support of universal ideals. If government were self-appointed, or ruled by divine right, there would be no way for the people to obtain desirable outcomes. Of a point, I do not believe in the uncontrollable, archaic, selfish “cowboyism” of so-called “total self-reliance” and dissolution of government.

      2. avatar 2Asux says:

        Yes, from the King’s perspective, it was reasonable to take extreme steps to prevent a foreign power (the colonies) from stripping rightful ownership from the commonweal. As it happened, there were more pressing events across the channel, and resources had to be diligently applied to the most important matters of empire.

        None of that pertains to the proper duty of government to protect its people, even from each other.

        1. avatar DC says:

          Your claim is that any local city or state government has the right to end warrant protection, or end established tests for due process or responsible suspicion tests, and/or end Miranda, and free speech.

    3. avatar ActionPhysicalMan says:

      Disarming someone is hardly protecting them.

      1. avatar Dan Zimmerman says:

        Of course it is. And war is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.

      2. avatar Dan Zimmerman says:

        Of course it is. Don’t forget that war is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.

      3. avatar 2Asux says:

        “Disarming someone is hardly protecting them.”

        Protecting others is not to be dismissed willy nilly.

        1. avatar DC says:

          Your claim is that any local city or state government has the right to end warrant protection, or end established tests for due process or responsible suspicion tests, and/or end Miranda, and free speech. Those could all make us “safer”

    4. avatar Esoteric Inanity says:

      This “protection” is illusory at best, there comes a time when all grand assurances and guarantees are worthless. Lest, one must die on their own feet, or live what little time remains of their life face down in the mud.

      1. avatar 2Asux says:

        “Lest, one must die on their own feet, or live what little time remains of their life face down in the mud.”

        Oh my, what a capital moment to post something stolen from another here:
        “Better to live on your feet, than die on your knees”.
        ….Nately to the Old Man.

        1. avatar Esoteric Inanity says:

          Redundancy begets redundancy, but one must keep playing the game, otherwise they live a pointless life or die a feckless death.

        2. avatar 2Asux says:

          Yes, one mustn’t stop the merry go ’round.

        3. avatar Esoteric Inanity says:

          Indeed, Esoteric Inanity says Goodbye!!!, and 2Asux says Hello!!!. Hello, Goodbye, Hello!!! It’s the same old song and dance, same old story.

          However, this one believes that dialogue is never a bad thing, just as dissenting views are oftentimes benificial to all sides. Provided that pride and anger don’t prevent one from engaging. All can learn immensely from those with different perspectives. The real danger tends to be ignorance (In this one’s opinion).

          Nothing galvanizes one’s beliefs like the heated passion of dissent, an echo chamber cannot do this. Therefore, Esoteric Inanity is indebted to 2Asux for his/her perspective, it is thought provoking and quite entertaining.

          Not certain of rhyme nor reason for this response, but allow this one to reciprocate: Did 2Asux know that Dr. Frankenstein’s first name was in fact Victor, and not Mary or Shelley? Esoteric Inanity was only recently elucidated to this.

          Cheers, and may there be more to come!!!

        4. avatar 2Asux says:

          “Did 2Asux know that Dr. Frankenstein’s first name was in fact Victor, and not Mary or Shelley? ”

          ‘Tis a poor son of empire who doesn’t know their Shelleys.

        5. avatar Esoteric Inanity says:

          “‘Tis a poor son of empire who doesn’t know their Shelleys.”

          Now that is esoteric or just pure inanity, to the point that this one might have even progenated it, as he has no comprehension of said statement. Edification is needed.

    5. avatar jwtaylor says:

      “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity”

      1. avatar 2Asux says:

        “…promote the general Welfare…”

        Promoting the safety of the people is not promoting the general Welfare?

        Sorry, you walked face-first into that.

    6. avatar Snatchums says:

      Yep, the government is to protect my rights. I have absolutely no interest in the government “protecting” me, that’s my own responsibility.

    7. avatar Ted Unlis says:

      There she is!

      1. avatar 2Asux says:

        Twice wrong.

        Having, expressing and supporting opposing ideas does not a “Troll” make. It might be rewarding to actually discover what, in blog context, “Troll” actually means (hint: clanging against an echo chamber is not it)

    8. avatar uncommon_sense says:


      If the only legitimate purpose of government is to protect its citizens …

      Your statement is fundamentally in error. The only legitimate purposes of government are:
      — Domestic: punish evil-doers
      — Foreign: repel invasions and facilitate trade

      A person who has no intention of attacking anyone and who wants to be armed as they walk around downtown IS NOT AN EVIL-DOER. Thus, government should leave that person alone. This ruling is consistent with that exceedingly simple concept.

      1. avatar 2Asux says:

        Are you proposing that my “natural, civil and constitutionally protected right” to life is non-essential? If government is not allowed to protect that simple fundamental, none of the others matter.

        1. avatar DC says:

          You mean by reducing fourth and fifth and sixth amendment rights? Is that your suggestion?

        2. avatar 2Asux says:

          Asked, and answered. (Did I get that right?)

          Read today that a federal court declared individuals have a right to carry firearms in public, in any manner convenient. That decision, as with others, also declared the people (as a society, through government) have a right to apply certain restrictions indicative of the seriousness of the responsibility, such as registration, training, and others that do not result in a de facto total ban. Simply put, “gun rights” are not absolute, inviolable.

        3. avatar uncommon_sense says:


          Government’s legitimate domestic authority is to punish evil-doers. And to be clear, evil-doers == scumbags who offensively harm other people. When government punishes those evil-doers, government removes those evil-doers from our society and provides a disincentive to other people who are contemplating offensively harming other people. That is actively protecting your right to life.

          What government has no legitimate domestic authority to do is infringe on our rights allegedly to protect our rights. Not only does government have no such legitimate authority, the statement makes it plain that such an endeavor is nonsense. (Eliminating rights is diametrically opposed to preserving rights.)

          Therefore, government has no legitimate authority to interfere with my right to carry whatever personal property I desire. Whether that personal property is an umbrella, bottle of wine, walking cane, or firearm is irrelevant. (Note that a person could use all of those items to deliver mortal wounds in seconds.) The instant that someone uses those items to offensively harm someone, and not a moment sooner, government has legitimate authority to step in.

        4. avatar 2Asux says:

          “The instant that someone uses those items to offensively harm someone, and not a moment sooner, government has legitimate authority to step in.”

          We agree. The ocean of guns available in America, the indisputable scourge of murders by firearm swamping the country mark that instant you speak of. The government, by your own analysis, is now empowered to step in and regulate.

        5. avatar painlessbob says:

          2Asux: “the indisputable scourge of murders by firearm swamping the country”

          Incorrect. Firearm murders, criminal injuries, and fatal accidents are each down overall in the U.S. by about 50% over the past 25 years or so.

          There are some recent geographic and demographic exceptions. Those are deep-blue inner cities and minority gangs, respectively.

        6. avatar 2Asux says:

          “There are some recent geographic and demographic exceptions. Those are deep-blue inner cities and minority gangs, respectively.”

          Precisely the sorts of places most needful of sharp curtailment of the vaunted freedom to carry a gun anywhere, anytime, anyplace.

          However, let us consider the danger of mass shootings (10 people or more). Research the history since 1993. How many of those mass murders were committed by people already properly identified as criminals (criminals who still found themselves with a gun in their hands)? I seems rather that the killers were people with clean criminal records.

    9. avatar Mr. Woodcock says:

      Now, now, old bean, please try to not sound so desperate when things don’t go the way you want them. Remember, the plane that brought you here can easily take you back to whence you came. Cheers!

      1. avatar 2Asux says:

        …”can easily take you back to whence you came.”

        I would not repeat that trip across the southwest desert for any amount of money.

    10. avatar jwm says:

      I see you’re over Manchester. How does a .gov go about protecting it’s people? If a police state like england can’t keep the bad guys from blowing up its children how is a free country like the US to do it?

      You’re an enabler of the bad guys, 2asux. You want the average person, the law abiding, tax paying person to be at the mercy of the bad guys. I know in your mind you picture yourself differently. But you’re wrong. You are an enabler of the the bad guys.

      1. avatar 2Asux says:

        Any person with a living brain cell who believes, or expects government to prevent every possible form of attack on citizens needs to turn that cell over to competent authority and apply for a minder.

        No protection can be absolute; no protection can be completely flawless. The “bad guys” you cite are as anomalous as tornadoes in Hawaii.

        Protecting the right to life of the people is a first-order imperative of government (society). To not be perfect does not saw away even a branch of the imperative. Following such logic means every effort of government must be 100% effective in order to be legitimate. That means every effort of the people to appoint government a responsibility must be 100% successful in execution. Even a Brit can see the absurdity.

        1. avatar DC says:

          Bad guys attempt or commit over 10 million violent crimes a year. good guys with guns stop a whole lot of them (more than cops prevent)

        2. avatar 2Asux says:

          “Bad guys attempt or commit over 10 million violent crimes a year. good guys with guns stop a whole lot of them (more than cops prevent)”

          Everyone of the violent crimes warrant armed response by the public?

          The “statistics” surrounding the number of “good guy” interventions to stop a crime are as difficult to defend as claims that there has never been a successful defensive use of a gun. Unlimited numbers of “defensive gun use” simply mean insufficient policing; insufficient resources provided for policing.

        3. avatar jwm says:

          You state that no .gov protection can be absolute. Which is true. But then you wish to disarm people so they can’t take up the slack on their own behalf when .gov fails, as it must.

          Which makes you an enabler of the death and destruction which must follow when .gov can’t be 100% effective.

          And you know, you say so yourself, that 100% protection is impossible. But you would still leave the individual defenseless.

          When you think about it, that’s a special level of evil.

        4. avatar 2Asux says:

          To devolve to a very low level, let us consider scarcity.

          If one is scarce of milk, the solution is to obtain more milk.

          If one is scarce of thread, the solution is to obtain more thread.

          If one is scarce of police, the solution is to obtain more police.

          Now, concerning police…if police frighten you, obtain a better class of police officer. The fact that you are unhappy with the quality of policing means you are deficient in influencing your community to improve the quality. If you have insufficient police to ensure (as best is possible) that police are adequate to respond timely, then obtain more police. Do you not know that it is the certainty of apprehension that is the deterrent effect of law? So, if there is a scarcity of deterrence, obtain more deterrence.

          Whether welcomed or not, the overall violent crime rate, and the overall crime with a gun are well below the US. If improving government’s ability to provide protection is not an attractive option, what would you have? Does anyone seriously believe that a small slice of the American public carrying firearms about will act as a deterrence in place of better, improved and more efficient police?

        5. avatar jwm says:

          2sux, become a police state like britain and china? And the bad guys still get thru. Your argument and point you yourself rendered invalid when you admitted that no .gov can succeed 100% of the time.

          Now you’re arguing with yourself.

        6. avatar 2Asux says:

          “…you yourself rendered invalid when you admitted that no .gov can succeed 100% of the time.”

          Are you convinced armed citizens can actually achieve 100% effectiveness? Or are you proposing to replace one less than perfect means of protecting the public with another?

          When you find police committing mass murder (and let’s limit “mass” to more than 10) every few years, then we can talk about how a population of gun owners who refuse standards of regulation are more adequate for protecting the public.

          If armed citizens could provide a credible deterrence to crime (or terrorist attacks), we would already see the result (no, there is no cause and effect between rising gun sales and declining crime rates).

        7. avatar jwm says:

          First of all, sux, old boy, I never said replace the police with citizens carrying guns. There’s room enough for both here. Citizens don’t have to protect the public. Just themselves.

          And since you apparently consider yourself to have magic powers and removed the “more guns, less crime” equation from the discussion what more is there to talk about?

          You used to be a better troll.(I know, I know, all you trolls claim you aren’t. But when you’ve admitted that police can’t protect folks and you still want to disarm those folks…….if it has feathers like a duck, webbed toes like a duck, quacks like a duck, it’s a duck.)

          Have as good a life as you can on the dole there in merry old til the change happens.

        8. avatar 2Asux says:

          Interesting response there. If limited police protection is insufficient, cobber the police; give guns to everyone. Ever think that improving police, adding to the rolls would actually have a positive effect? I ask again, where is the deterrent effect of the small population of gun carriers. Indeed, even gun possessors? Unless your idea of taking things into your own hands is 100% effective, a different solution must be sought.

          Removing “more guns, less crime” from the equation? Without definitive proof of direct cause and effect, there is no “more guns, less crime” equation.

          By the by, if you’ve been here long you know I do not subscribe to complete confiscation of private firearms. What I do propose, and push, is the idea of standardized professional training (private industry organizations can establish the standards) and proof of competency in handling not only a gun, but stressful situations where a gun would come into play. With deadly force in your hands, I believe a gun owner has a significant, beyond average, responsibility to prove to society one is not posing the threat of irresponsible gun handling.

          This is so tiresome, but, once again, a differing viewpoint, opinion, principle, belief makes not a troll.

        9. avatar jwm says:

          Deliberate and willful misstating of what I said. Troll. At no point did I say reduce, dump, or cobber the police. I am one of the cop supporters here.

          Nor did I say give every one a gun. That’s a personal decision whether or not to excercise your basic human and civil rights.

          And your regulation scheme is just that, a scheme. Nobody will be able to pass your requirements.

          Again. Troll.

        10. avatar 2Asux says:

          “And your regulation scheme is just that, a scheme. Nobody will be able to pass your requirements.”

          So that everyone should understand, you are declaring that an industry created and operated system of ensuring gun owners prove their understanding of the seriousness of their responsibility as gun owners is an impossibility because gun owners would not be able to successfully certify (pass the course)? Then you are hung on your own petard. If gun owners cannot pass a civilian controlled standards certification, why should they be allowed to waltz about in public with a firearm?

          If you insist that an armed citizenry can overthrow a tyrannical government (against an army more powerful than the founders could have imagined after smoking copious amounts of mind altering substance), then do as the founders: hang your rifle above the mantle; store your ammunition in weatherproof containers; practice military drills on the village green. As to going walkabout with a gun, the founders could not have conceived a nation as complex and intertwined as America became. The founders could not treat the idea of millions of people in the major cities with any serious thought. The nation is changed from those days. A vision of the interaction (dare I say ‘intercourse’) between individuals on the scale you see today would have left the founders in a speechless stupor.

          Finally, regarding your childlike love of the word “troll”, I believe your dear and sainted mother would be horrified at your literary and intellectual limits, had she not already abandoned you at birth, out of shame.

        11. avatar jwm says:

          The industry scheme will not remain that as you well know. The .gov will step in. Why else do we have things like the dmv?

          Insulting my intellect is proof of your trollness, not a rebuttal. And dragging my mother into it? Should I start talking about your mother?

          How proud is she of a son that enables murder and terrorism by working to disarm the innocent? If she is proud, what does that say about her? Proud product of english in breeding?

          See, you went there and made it all exceptable.

  14. avatar Matt says:

    Time to buy 10 round magazines!!!

  15. avatar Mark says:

    Hmmm, I see letters SAF and PP but no NRA.

    1. avatar million says:

      Gura pointed to this recently and said it sounded familiar…

      makes me think the NRA tried to jump in and boot him from Wrenn so they could get the victory credit.

    2. avatar Matt says:

      From the ruling….
      “Paul D. Clement, Erin E. Murphy, and Christopher G. Michel were on the brief for amicus curiae National Rifle Association of America, Inc. in support plaintiffs-appellees.”
      On page 5.

  16. avatar AutismOverTexas says:

    Our court system is a f*cking mess. We have one area ruling completely counter to Heller then other that doesn’t, and our Supreme Court refuses to sort it out.

    1. avatar Omer Baker says:

      It sounds like you’re advocating for the dissolution of the states and one big general government over all of us instead of the federal system that was implemented under the constitution. I admit that one big general government is what we appear to have and what many think is what is/should be, but all that does not make it correct or legal.

      1. avatar Curtis in IL says:

        What I would advocate for, and what the founders intended, is a central government merely strong enough to protect the enumerated rights of all citizens written in the Constitution.

        We don’t need the same laws in all states. But we do need the same rights in all states.

        1. avatar TommyJay says:


        2. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “But we do need the same rights in all states.”

          If you study the founding of the nation, you must conclude the founders did not see it that way. The federal government is essentially a treaty between sovereign, independent, separate states. Each of them reserving the right of near absolute self-determination inside their borders.

        3. avatar binder says:

          Sam I am, the Articles of Confederation were a mess from the start.

        4. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Sam I am, the Articles of Confederation were a mess from the start.”

          Yes. The states, notifying but not seeking approval of the continental congress, determined to meet and attempt to improve the articles where they (articles) were so obviously deficient as to present a threat to the safety of the individual states, and the grouping of the nation (union; which the articles claimed were perpetual, but the later constitution did not).

          The states believed themselves completely sovereign, having the inherent power to associate, or not, with any or all of the other states in a compact (treaty) forming a nation of sovereigns. The subsequent constitution was designed, and approved (ratified) by the sovereign states, without involvement by the continental congress. Indeed, the delegates to the constitutional convention were not allowed to also be members of the existing continental congress.

          As proof of the claim of state sovereignty, the tenth amendment was created to remove all doubt that the sovereign states ruled the central government, and unless the states voted to delegate more power (via constitutional amendment) to the central government, all powers, enumerated or not, remained the sole province of the sovereign states. Notwithstanding that “northern” states were the first to threaten or attempt secession (long before 1860), until the truncated nation ratified the 13th and 14th amendments, state sovereignty was extant and secured. Nothing prior the 1868 supported the idea that states intended all, or most, “law” to be “standard” among the states. Repealing the 10th amendment ended any concept of state sovereignty (“states rights”), yet the fiction of co-existing federal superiority of law and state superiority of law pertains to this day. The reality is that state superiority of law only applies as it is convenient to the federal/central government (i.e. ruling class, including central bureaucracy).

          So it is, we end up clamoring for individual gun rights in each state, and federal superiority permitting unrestricted ability to “keep and bear” a firearm across all political subdivisions (states) of the central/federal government.

          A logical fallacy, a weak argument in the notion of individual or state rights.

        5. avatar jwtaylor says:

          Sam I Am, no sir, that’s not what the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are all about. The “more perfect union” was all about a certain set of rights that were recognized by all. That to be in the union, you could do all sorts of stuff, but these basic rules were the standard for the union and all within it.

        6. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “That to be in the union, you could do all sorts of stuff, but these basic rules were the standard for the union and all within it.”

          No, they were not. The “rules” related only to the regulation of the central government (except where specifically the “rules” stated otherwise.

          It is nice to sit here 228 years later, and impute our notions to the founders. Read about the times of the constitution, and immediately after. The states did not conform their individual constitutions to match the US constitution in all respects. The point of the federal constitution was not uniformity of state law, but shackles on the national government. States maintained their own constitutions and laws, as they do today.

          Being of at least moderate intelligence, the founders were possessed of the language and understanding to have stated clearly that state laws would be uniform and standard, and totally in concert and agreement with the federal compact. It was not until the 14th amendment that such mirroring between federal and state laws was introduced.

        7. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

          The Constitution and the Bill of Rights was mostly about how the federal government would be organized and how it would relate to the states. The stuff about rights was almost entirely about limits on the federal government and not the states. Therefore, it was almost certain that people in different states would have different rights.

        8. avatar Sam I Am says:

          Again, you make the point more economically than I.

        9. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

          Sam is right.

          (Even more economic, but much less convincing).

        10. avatar Curtis in IL says:


          I will acknowledge that the union envisioned by our founders included more state sovereignty than we have today. The Thirteenth, Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments limited that sovereignty in a big way.

        11. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “The Thirteenth, Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments limited that sovereignty in a big way.”

          I’d say those amendments erased any significant sovereignty.

          My “complaint” it the double-mindedness appearing here, where POTG hate the encroachment of central government, but want that encroachment when it suits them.

        12. avatar Pat. H says:

          SamIam: we settled the issue of whether states have absolute authority within their borders with the Civil War.

          The notion was briefly revived in the Sixties when many Southern politicians wanted to deny rights to African Americans.

          No one has seriously advocated for absolute States Rights since George Wallace. Except maybe on the internet.

        13. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “SamIam: we settled the issue of whether states have absolute authority within their borders with the Civil War.”

          Then why continue to pretend that any social, legal or commercial matter should be left to the states? We read here how federal gun controls offend the sensitivities of gun owners who want their state to determine which regulations exist.

          Just noting that even gun owners are capable of thinking like the gun grabbers.

      2. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

        I read AutismOverTexas’s statement to mean that the Supreme Court should do their job and take cases that result in a split opinion between circuits.

  17. avatar dollup15 says:

    An VERY important correction to the article: this decision was NOT made by the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, it was instead made by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. While the names of these two courts sound similar, they are two entirely separate entities.

    The District of Columbia Court of Appeals is essentially the equivalent of a state supreme court for DC, and is mostly responsible for adjudicating local DC laws/ordinances.

    By contrast, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit is a federal appellate court, equivalent to any other court of appeals (1st Circuit, 9th Circuit, etc.). The difference is that its geographical jurisdiction is very small; it only encompasses the District of Columbia. Despite its small size, this court is often regarded as the second most important court in the land behind the Supreme Court.

    The significance of this decision cannot be overstated. We now have a federal appellate court stating that the “may issue” scheme is unconstitutional. While, strictly speaking, this decision only directly controls in DC, other circuits often view decisions from the DC circuit as persuasive authority. On the other hand, if another circuit finds differently, then we will have a split in the circuits, which could cause the Supreme Court to take the case and make a decision.

    1. avatar Curtis in IL says:

      Other circuits have already found differently.

      1. avatar million says:

        and the dissenting judge cites them exhaustively. if i read Drake, Wachalsky, or Peruta one more time today…

      2. avatar binder says:

        And the Seventh Circuit ruled for for the right to carry, looks like 2 to 1 against the 9th, any other decisions?

        1. avatar binder says:

          Sorry, forget about the 2nd, 3rd and 4th cases

    2. avatar Johannes Paulsen says:

      Typo on my part – corrected. Thanks for pointing it out.

  18. avatar Curtis in IL says:

    The very idea that the government can decide who is “allowed” to exercise an enumerated right, and who can’t, without due process of law, should be repulsive to all Americans, gun owners or not.

    I pray this is the first blow of the sledge hammer against the wall of tyranny that separates far too many Americans from their rights. May it ultimately come down like the Berlin wall!

    1. avatar Ing says:

      Amen. (Not holding my breath in the meantime, but…amen.)

    2. avatar 2Asux says:

      “…without due process of law…”

      POTG apparently oppose even that, when it comes to firearms.

        1. avatar 2Asux says:

          “…without due process of law…” POTG apparently oppose even that, when it comes to firearms.”

          “How so?”

          Legislation and ordinances are passed by duly appointed/elected officials. That is “due process”.

          Disputes are taken up by courts of law. That is due process.

          Sometimes one does not like the result of “due process” (such as POTG). Dislike does not invalidate “due process”.

        2. avatar jwm says:

          Right you are, 2sux. You’re really not going to like the due process when the US is constitutional carry nationwide. No more than 5 years. It will be glorious to see civil rights and human rights finally honored nation wide.

          You will be pissed. But that’s the knocks, kid.

        3. avatar 2Asux says:

          “You will be pissed. But that’s the knocks, kid.”

          Nothing to become wrought about. Things change, back and forth, over time. The longer this discussion pervades the public ken, the more likely people will tire of it, and put in place sensible solutions. As in Britain, where immigration policy is claimed to be re-shaping the culture recognisably, immigration in the US will move the culture more closely to the nations of origin.

        4. avatar Curtis in IL says:

          “Due process of law,” as mentioned in the 5th and 14th Amendments, refers to a judicial process whereby the accused has a right to defend himself and confront his accuser, before his life, liberty or property may be forfeited via court order. To suggest that it refers to the infringement of rights en masse by legislative process is ridiculous. In fact, our courts spend a great deal of time striking down laws created through legislative process that infringe on our rights.

        5. avatar 2Asux says:

          “In fact, our courts spend a great deal of time striking down laws created through legislative process that infringe on our rights.”

          And upholding the right of the people to change laws is a matter of due process in the courts. The fact that many decisions are unappetising to some does not render “due process” void. Point being that when courts rule against wild west carrying of firearms violates the “general welfare”, “due process” obtains.

  19. avatar million says:

    Peruta was denied cert 7-2 so I’m very pessimistic that carry outside the home will ever be considered “core” 2A by SCOTUS. Even if Trump picked another Gorsuch to replace a retiring Kennedy, that still leaves four progs + “Mr. Penaltax/Savior of the ACA” Roberts.

    1. avatar Mark N. says:

      It is stretching to say that cert was denied 7-2, as the vote is just looking for four votes in favor. There is a belief that there are two more votes, but they vote against cert until they can get a reliable fifth vote, and that they don’t have. They do not want to risk a 5-4 decision going the wrong way. As of right now, they will not get a fifth vote for at least a year, unless someone dies, as the only justice apparently intending to retire isn’t going to do so until; next June.

      1. avatar million says:

        true, not denied 7-2.

        i don’t see Roberts ruling that conceal carry is “core” to 2A.

        1. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

          Two signed a dissent from denial. Another could have voted to grant cert, but not signed the opinion.

    2. avatar uncommon_sense says:


      I think there is a greater than 50% chance that the U.S. Supreme Court will hear Peruta (or a similar Second Amendment case) if a conservative justice replaces Kennedy. And if a conservative justice replaces Ginsburg as well, I think the U.S. Supreme Court will — as in 100% probability — promptly hear Peruta or an equivalent case.

      1. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

        There is a zero percent chance that the court will hear Peruta. The Peruta case is gone. Cert was denied. That’s it. It’s over.

        Now the question in Peruta, which is the same question in these cases, could be heard.

  20. avatar million says:

    from the dissent:

    “empirical connection between a profusion of guns and increased violent crime”

    and then she cites that NRC study from 2013 which shows a decrease in violent crime rates alongside an increase in firearms. and the study concludes by saying they can’t determine anything from the stats.

    these people can’t even file a dissent in good faith.

    1. avatar Steven M Cole says:

      The Judge’s job was not to evaluate the relationship between guns and violence. The Judge was supposed to rule on whether outside the home carry was projected by the 2nd Amendment.

      She failed to do this task. That looks like an impeachable offence to me.
      It’s time for the U.S. House to start impeaching some of these circuit court constitutional scofflaws.

      1. avatar dollup15 says:

        Please stop with nonsensical comments like this. Under the constitution, impeachment is reserved for those who have committed a crime. Doing one’s job poorly is a not a crime.

  21. avatar former water walker says:

    Good! It took a court order to get CC in Illinois. May freedom break out everywhere…

  22. avatar Dan says:

    At least a 50% chance this ruling is reversed en-banc unfortunately

  23. avatar JohnnyL says:

    Hey Bloomberg !! I have some bad news for you today… 🙂

  24. avatar TFred says:

    If anyone wants to read the opinion:$file/16-7067.pdf

    The end is pretty good:

    “To watch the news for even a week in any major city is to give up any illusions about “the problem of handgun violence in this country.” Heller I, 554 U.S. at 570. The District has understandably sought to fight this scourge with every legal tool at its disposal. For that long struggle against gun violence, you might see in today’s decision a defeat; you might see the opposite. To say whether it is one or the other is beyond our ken here. We are bound to leave the District as much space to regulate as the Constitution allows—but no more. Just so, our opinion does little more than trace the boundaries laid in 1791 and flagged in Heller I. And the resulting decision rests on a rule so narrow that good-reason laws seem almost uniquely designed to defy it: that the law-abiding citizen’s right to bear common arms must enable the typical citizen to carry a gun.

    We vacate both orders below and remand with instructions to enter permanent injunctions against enforcement of the District’s good-reason law.

    So ordered.”

    1. avatar Curtis in IL says:

      It’s like the last line of a movie, where you know there will be a sequel (or three).

  25. avatar TommyJay says:

    We now have two circuit 3 judge panels who have given us a plain English reading of Heller. “Shall issue” is the law of the land via Heller. Heller cites the 2A clause “keep and bear arms,” plus copious lower court decisions to conclude that law abiding citizens must be allowed to bear arms in some form, to be determined by state or local government.

    But,… there will be an en banc rehearing at the US-CA-DC and probably this will be reversed. Obama put much effort into packing this court with leftists. While I’m surprised that there is one more Republican appointed justice than Dem, it will only take one sleazeball like John Roberts for this to be overturned. Then we will have another Peruta redux.

    The rule for choosing to rehear en banc requires either an issue of exceptional importance or the need to maintain judicial uniformity. Well everything that a leftist wants is of exceptional importance, so Check. But uniformity?? Heller is the law of the land, so the Peruta en banc ruling is a clear violation of Heller and so destroys uniformity and as will the coming US-CA-DC en banc ruling.

    What a mess. We need clear legislation that makes en banc rehearings rigidly proscribed and very rare. Perhaps we need a couple conservative circuit courts to issue decisions that come up with BS excuses to ignore Roe v. Wade or Obergefell? Either SCOTUS decisions really count or they don’t. All this nonsense with Peruta SCOTUS appeal certs just means that we are being forced to rehear Heller over and over again.

  26. avatar Bob says:

    Second Amendment Foundation and Pink Pistols….

    Where was the NRA in this?

    Why weren’t they fighting this court case?

    Maybe because if DC actually followed the Constitution they’d have one less boogie man to use to collect funds.

    1. avatar Curtis in IL says:

      I can’t speak for the NRA, but at this point, the issue affects a very small number of people in this tiny appellate district. If/when it gets to SCOTUS, that’s when we need Alan Gura and the deep pockets of the NRA.

    2. avatar Matt says:

      NRA is listed on page 6.

  27. avatar Jarrett says:

    Now if only the same common sense applied in Ca, where the 9th Circuit just ruled “good cause” does apply.

  28. avatar Aaron says:

    Any activity to this end expected in Maryland?

  29. avatar Pat. H says:

    It is interesting​that even the dissenting judge acknowledged that the 2A protects the right of self-defense. She didn’t try that “National Guard” Dodge.

  30. avatar Hannibal says:

    I have little doubt that this will be fought until it is either overturned or validated at the highest levels that can\will take the case. Still nice to see a victory though.

    “Judge Henderson then tried her hand at historical analysis, claiming that, historically, the states have disagreed over the extent of the right to keep and bear arms…”

    Yeah and, historically, the states have disagreed over the extent and right to own people. The whole point of the Constitution is that it lays out a minimum standard of rights (I wonder if the judge in question would be so interested in states’ rights or the evidence of acceptance in the states on issues of abortion and gay marriage)

  31. avatar Marco says:

    Can we get a Kennedy resignation and a sudden tragic loss of Breyer please?

    That is the only margin I’m going to trust.

    Throw in RBG resignation/death and I will get a Trump tattoo.

  32. avatar DaveL says:

    It should never have been controversial that the Right to Bear Arms is, in fact, a right, and that anything that you must get special dispensation from the government in order to do is not a right.

  33. avatar Esoteric Inanity says:

    “‘Tis a poor son of empire who doesn’t know their Shelleys.”

    Now that is esoteric or just pure inanity, to the point that this one might have even progenated it, as he has no comprehension of said statement. Hahaha bravo!!!

  34. avatar 2Asux says:

    And which statement would you be about?

    1. avatar Esoteric Inanity says:

      Assuming that this was intended to Esoteric Inanity: What is a “son of empire” (reference to descendants of Anglo Saxons, Romans, Macedonians or Egyptians by chance?) and how many “Shelleys” are there? (Although Shelley Frankenstein would have been a damn cool name like Aldo Nova or Louis Garou). Apologies as the statement’s meaning eludes this one.

      1. avatar 2Asux says:

        The longest running empire.

        “…how many “Shelleys” are there?”

        Had forgotten how shallow the education in the US. There were two significant Shelleys: Percy and Mary. One a poet, the other the fountain who brought forth one of the most enduring and endearing monsters in literature.

  35. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

    Does anyone know when D.C. has to file their response to the court’s order (if they choose to do so)?

    I know it’s governed F.R.A.P. 40, and they either have 14 days or 45 days. I’d assume that they are treated as a state and not as the United States, an agency thereof, etc., and the 14 days would apply.

    The court stayed their order until 7 days “after disposition of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc.”

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