It seems even the dedicated anti-gun crowd that runs our nation’s capital know when they’ve been beaten. And the Washington Post is in full mourning mode.
District officials will not appeal a court order blocking enforcement of the city’s restrictions on the carrying of concealed guns in public, setting the stage for what could be a marked increase in firearms on the streets of the nation’s capital.
D.C. Attorney General Karl Racine (D) (above) and Mayor Muriel E. Bowser (D) will announce the decision not to appeal to the Supreme Court this afternoon, according to a city official with knowledge of the decision.
This means that, as in so many other jurisdictions around the country, DC residents will no longer have to demonstrate need in order to get a concealed carry permit.
The city’s move comes as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit is expected to issue an order as soon as today enforcing its recent ruling that struck down the District’s requirement that people seeking licenses to carry concealed weapons must demonstrate a “good reason” — such as a credible fear of violence — for carrying a gun in public.
DC residents may want to secure that permit sooner rather than later, though.
It means permit-seekers could begin applying to carry concealed weapons as soon as today. It is not yet clear whether city officials will attempt to rewrite the law to enforce additional permit restrictions beyond the requirements — for a background check and firearms training — that the appeals court left intact.
What are the odds?
Still not in New Jersey…
If they got the Supremes to hear it, that would buy them another 2-3 years, but then the final decision would be binding on NJ, CA, NY…
I wonder how many state governors/attorney generals begged them to quit while it was still only binding in the Federal Circuit.
That is exactly my thought, they know that if the SC says they are wrong then the other states have a lot harder time keeping what they have. Instead, it has to be fought state by state or city by city even which is more cumbersome and expensive.
From the article we have this admission from Democrat Mr. Racine :
“However, we must reckon with the fact that an adverse decision by the Supreme Court could have wide-ranging negative effects not just on District residents, but on the country as a whole.”
*Snicker*
‘Concealed Carry’ in D.C. Imagine that!
After this week, we needed a boost…
EDIT – Since Congress makes the rules in the district, can they just declare reciprocity with the 50 states?
I agree. What this also does is that it allows D.C. to refuse reciprocity to anyone from other states, and you just know that that is going to happen. A national “shall issue” rule enunciated by the Supreme Court would eviscerate the basis for such restrictions.
I was thinking the exact same thing as well!
that’s why chicago didn’t appeal when they lost on the same type of case.
Because the four (or five?) families in New York will get upset when people can resist their appeals for involuntary cash donations.
… Or New York. Looks like the few remaining shall-issue states will have to go one at a time.
I’m no legal eagle, but that was an expedient decision on the part of D.C.
They know that it highly likely SCOTUS would have upheld the Appeals Court ruling, and that would have struck down the “may issue” laws in several states.
They probably had Attorneys General from those several states begging and pleading with D.C. to let this one ride.
Thank you, President Trump, for Neil Gorsuch.
I’m guessing SCOTUS would not have granted cert and the decision would’ve stood either way. DC’s decision is a frugal one.. for once.
SCOTUS would have granted Cert, this was first real circuit split. Circuit split is the most compelling reason that exists for a SCOTUS cert.
DC would have lost the case because the gun control lobby wrote both their law and their legal arguments and those include specifically saying the reason for may issue is to limit the number of legitimate law abiding carriers which is a rationing of rights already held unconistutional.
Yes, I think you have it right. Why risk a SCOTUS ruling striking down shall-issue all over the country when you can just weasel your way around it and make your opponents start the slow crawl through the courts all over again?
Though, I can’t say I’d relish risking a toss of the Justice Kennedy dice on something so important either.
^This.
This guy relishes the role he’s taken on in the last several years as the court’s swing vote. His ruling on any given day on any given issue hinges on what kind of press he thinks he’ll get and how “historic” he thinks it will be.
I have a sneaking hunch that it won’t be any easier to carry in D. C. regardless. Taking out this one ridiculous restriction won’t do anything to alter the minds and attitudes of the cops and all the rest of the parasites.
They’ll just double down on what’s left and you can bet they will continue to block self defense by any means they can find.
Agree, but anything that makes the harassment harder is a definite boon, and it’s a rare bright spot in a crappy week. In spite of Vegas, we halfway won one.
Long term, this will still broaden the numbers and make it harder for them to squeal about blood in the streets.
“District of Columbia Won’t Appeal ‘Shall-Issue’ Ruling to Supreme Court”
BECAUSE THEY KNOW THEY CAN D1<K AROUND FOR A FEW HUNDRED YEARS WITH LACK OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE LAW. SO WHY BE HELD IN CONTEMPT OF A HIGHER COURT ? ? ?
So you think they are going to screw around with an explicit order from the Court of Appeals? I really don’t think so. Why would they want to risk having hte court write their law for them, and be subject to substantial sanctions at the same time? Contempt of court is contempt of court, and it doesn’t matter which court it is.
As I recall, the last time there was an opening for permits several years ago, Police Chief Lanier had no problem complying with the court’s orders. My guess is that there will be no issue here either, though outrageous and over burdensome qualification and training rules seem to me to be a likely scenario.
nope, they will be approving about 1,500 previously denied and currently held in press since July, expect another couple of thousand this year
Hmmm in DC but not in other states. Anyway to use the ruling in this circuit to rehear the unfavorable ruling from the 9th?
Nope. What we have (and have had for a while) is a split of authority between the Circuits. I.e., the law is X in the 9th Circuit, but Not X in the DC Circuit. Absent a circuit deciding on its own that it was wrong in the first place (not gonna happen here), it’s the Supreme Court’s job to resolve such circuit splits.
And with Kennedy as the deciding vote, neither side wants to roll the dice. Until Kennedy, Ginsberg, or Breyer are replaced, welcome to the new normal.
Exactly. Sad though, isn’t it? (I thank my lucky stars that I live in one of the “virtual shall issue” counties in the State.)
I guess I read the court decision too fast; didn’t take note of this, “…and firearms training — that the appeals court left intact”.
Not liking that part, at all.
about 3/4 of jurisdictions require some form of training. BTW, all the DC trainers are NRA trainers
It is still time for NATIONAL RECIPROCITY HR 38.
Call your congressional representative and senator now.
Gun control NO. Reciprocity YES.
What i find interesting is that Brady Campaign says DC has a gun ownership rate of 26% and backing that up with peer reviewed studies and the citing per reviewed studies that use that “26%” to make other assertions. So does Everytown.
The Post says there are 6,000 registered owners.
So 26% of adults in DC own guns. DC’s population is 681,000 total, and about 600,000 adults. 26% of that is 156,000.
So the gun control professionals say that DC has 150,000 persons in criminal possession, one in four adults, and 6,000 people who arelaw abiding.
DC is worried about the 6,000 which is the po0l from which carry permits will come — and not worried about the one in four DC residents who are criminally armed????
What kind of place is DC that one in four people is a weapons criminal?