Emily Miller Gets Her DC Carry License; Infernal Regions Endure Cold Spell

No, I am not making this up: Fox 5’s chief investigative reporter Emily Miller was provisionally approved for a license to carry a concealed firearm within the District of Columbia. Miller is apparently the fifteenth such person to apply for and receive a license after following the byzantine process to become licensed to pack heat in our nation’s capital. She will now need to complete a District-approved training course . . .

within the next 45 days to complete the process. Ms. Miller explains that her approval apparently hinged on the fact that she had received documented threats that had been reported previously to law enforcement (in contrast to journalist Steve Gutowski):

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

Why me?

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

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

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

I’d like to congratulate Ms. Miller and wish her well as she goes forward with the ability to legally exercise a right that only fourteen other regular citizens can, people who don’t enjoy a special exemption for association with the military, civilian law enforcement, or other group especially favored by politicians. Good for her. Someday I hope the rest of us will be able to exercise our rights without such restrictions throughout the land of the free.

Stay safe out there, Ms. Miller.



  1. avatar LarryinTX says:

    “May issue” has essentially always been incredibly stupid. Just who is this guy we all trust to make those life and death decisions for us, what are his qualifications to judge the threats against us, and why does he think we are so incompetent we cannot make them for ourselves? I’ll bet he gets the authority to make that decision for a 20-year SEAL, while he has been a political whore all his life.

    But good for you, Emily, whatever decision you eventually make.

  2. avatar Ken says:

    I suspect the only reason she was approved was because she had a firm written paper trail where she notified them of a threat. They wanted to avoid liability in case she was attacked if yhey had refused her request.

    1. avatar Ralph says:

      Ken, they have no legal liability. Maybe they just didn’t want to look bad in the event that Emily really did get hurt or worse. But my best guess is that Ms. Miller got her permit because issuing it would help the G prove that it is issuing permits to people who qualify and not simply using the process to deny everyone.

      1. avatar Jarrod says:

        She got approved because she is a high profile local news reporter, that has documented the process from beginning to end, endured a campaign aimed at her employer, to get her fired, and has the documented threats to boot.

        If they had denied her, the entire approval process would have fallen to pieces in the ensuing lawsuit.

        1. avatar Ralph says:

          Yup. They had two choices: deny her and deal with the fallout (“Never pick a fight with people who buy ink by the barrel.” – Mark Twain), or grant her permit and wait for the nice article to follow.

          They chose wisely.

        2. avatar ChrisB. says:

          No, she is being exploited by DC politicos and allowing herself to be. . She allowed herself to be used a s token in this pyrrhic victory

          Ms Miller does not have my respect. I am a DC gun owner and when I talk to prospective DC gun owners I find lots of them are specifically turned off to getting a gun by Ms Millers exaggerations. DC blows, but so does Maryland,

          For home ownership DC is EASER and faster than Maryland. or NJ — and I have lived in all three. The laws suck but she has in my opinion net REDUCED the number of people who would own guns here. She has also taken credit for battles others have fought and won.

          In NJ if you want a gun for your home you need character references. The process takes about three to four months. When my sister in Maryland decided to get a gun in 2013 it took her SIX MONTHS to get approved.
          In DC you can get any handgun legal in Maryalnd and it takes ten days.

        3. avatar foodog says:

          Chris B, I have read this whine elsewhere- “DC gun owners afraid to apply cuz too hard…” cuz Emily says so.

          Last time I looked anyone could look up the rules, pick up the phone, get the facts, and make up their own mind.
          Are you really suggesting that DC gun owners are blaming a girl for not getting their permit?

          This is white-knighting for the ignorant, I guess.

  3. avatar Roscoe says:

    With all the rabid intolerant Democrats running around D.C., every Fox reporter needs protection, especially with *this* Fox News hating administration.

    1. avatar foo dog says:

      And that’s not just a hypothetical- remember this guy-

      Plenty of unhinged personalities on the Left- look at the nitwits who flocked to Ferguson, to inflame and put people at risk of deadly harm there. Heck- just read the forums at WAPO and NYT… scary hate there.

      Or the IRS- justifying denying the right to affiliate, to little old blue haired ladies in the TeaParty.
      Or the DHS- trying to scare the American public prior to a vote, by hypothesizing on Right Wing Domestic Terrorists, and Al Shabab in the Mall of America.

      Beyond shameless, the Left is.

  4. avatar Chip Bennett says:

    It’s about frigging time. Good on you, Emily; and congratulations!

    And the District can get bent.

    1. So can she possess a spent shot shell?

      1. avatar Chip Bennett says:

        Well now, I wouldn’t go that far. Sabots might still be right out, too.

  5. avatar Colt Magnum says:

    Out here, in the other Washington, we’re a shall-issue state. It’s been that way for 54 years.

    1. avatar -Peter says:

      Good luck keeping it that way, sir. With the increasing californication of Seattle, I would be getting a bit nervous.

  6. avatar Tommy Knocker says:

    I am betting on the powers that be setting up a trap for Ms. Miller. If she steps out of line one millimeter they will come down on her like a ton of bricks. She WILL go to jail. Half the people she will encounter in the next year will be undercover cops. The moment she comes out of her house she will be videotaped. Good luck.

    1. avatar styrgwillidar says:

      Yet the idiot newscaster waving around a banned standard capacity magazine was given a pass, since he was doing it for gun control.

      Lovely logic, I think these should be banned and illegal, yet I’m going to violate the very law I’m stating support for by waving around the thing I’m agreeing with being legally banned from possessing. Even though I’m possessing one. Here on TV. For everyone to see. Because them being illegal for me to have is a good thing. Even though I went to the trouble to violate the law to get one. To talk about how good it is for it to be illegal to have one. The thing I’m waving around, that I have, that the law making this illegal for me to have is good. And the law is good, making this illegal for me to have, that I must violate the law prohibiting me from having it to insist that it is good for it to be illegal for me to have it. Here. Right now.

    2. avatar Hannibal says:

      I don’t buy it. It’s pretty clear to me they’re trying to shut her up rather than cause more of a ruckus.

    3. avatar foo dog says:

      I’d say the progtard media fell into their own trap, the bogus “story” fronted first by VPC via Media Matters, and picked up and circulated in the echo chamber by Useful Idiots like Erik Wemple at WAPO for the “outrage, outrage I tell you!” of a journalist like Emily daring to exercise her 1A rights in a gathering of 2A supporters in VA. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2015/02/10/wttg-fox-5-reporter-emily-miller-advances-gun-rights-agenda-in-maryland/

      What the progtards didn’t realize is that everyone who read that saw right thru the propaganda, and more important- lots and lots of independent strong young women (and men) saw Emily and her Example of Calm Courage, and that of her employer, WTTG Fox, who backed her, in spite of bogus Change.org efforts to get her fired…
      and said to themselves- that’s what I want to be…

      Seen any hyperventilating lately on WAPO on this latest story…elsewhere? Crickets? Thought so.

      Emily kicked their propagandizing cowardly A$$es after revealing the DC corruptocrats for exactly what they are…

  7. avatar dwb says:

    Congratulations Emily, welcome to America, D.C. Sort of, in fits and starts, but its still a small step forward.

    btw, I know a lot of people want to know, but it’s called a “concealed” firearm for a reason.

  8. avatar Mark N. says:

    I wonder if the threats were from people who don’t approve of her position about firearms.

    1. avatar Geoff PR says:

      Quite possible…

      I hope she considers some body armor as well….

      As others have noted, I hope she sticks to the letter of the law and doesn’t let herself get set up by an anti with an agenda. (Like there is such a thing as an anti without an agenda.)

  9. avatar SteveInCO says:

    Emily: Private decision it will be, but I will “meddle” so far as to say I hope you decide to carry.

    1. avatar Curtis in IL says:

      By the looks of those biceps, it would be foolish to tangle with her even if she wasn’t armed.

  10. avatar Ralph says:

    Ms. Miller has only been “provisionally” apporived, so she doesn’t have her permit yet.

    Pop quiz: Which took less time? (A) Emily’s permit, or (B) US victory in World War Two.

    1. avatar BDub says:

      Which theater?

      1. avatar Excedrine says:

        Does it even matter?

    2. avatar Icabod says:

      Keep in mind the permit, whenever it’s issued, is good for only 2 years. At he end Emily will not only have to reapply, she will need to show new threats against her. The current threats will not count.

  11. avatar John in Ohio says:

    Congratulations on being afforded the ability to exercise the privilege of permitted, licensed carry. It is better than no carry. Please, write about the infringed ability to exercise the actual right to bear arms in DC. I trust that, as a journalist, you will not be satisfied with a privilege in place of a right. Stay safe and carry on.

  12. avatar Brooklyn in da house says:

    If she wasn’t a reporter and just a women on the internet that got threatened on twitter, would the results be the same? I highly doubt it.

    1. avatar Mr Pierogie says:

      I don’t know. John Stossel took his cameras to his local PD in NYC when he was applying and he got denied, thanks to lack of justifiable need if I remember correctly. So I guess if you can prove there were threats against you and the cops aren’t total shmos, you might get a permit.

      1. avatar Ralph says:

        All true, Mr P, but NYC doesn’t have a court order against its de facto no issue policy. If it did, things might have turned out differently for Stossel.

        1. avatar Mr Pierogie says:

          Sorry if I wasn’t clear, I meant to say “and if you live in DC.” Yeah, I realize the City is in it’s own special universe and only a few chosen ones get to carry.

        2. avatar Brooklyn in da house says:

          Even with a court order i doubt NYC would issue carry permits.

  13. avatar styrgwillidar says:

    I side with the logic of one of the courts on the discretionary issue process for CCW, specifically:

    A right of the people which is restricted to being exercised by only a small number, is not being treated as a right.

  14. avatar Curtis in IL says:

    She’s bright, talented, attractive, confident, and fights like a barracuda.
    A wonderful ambassador for POTG.
    She’ll inspire more women to decide not to be victims and to vote against politicians who would infringe on their rights.
    She’s gotta be Mike & Shannon’s worst nightmare.

    1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      Emily Miller is the anti-Shannon.

  15. avatar Neminem says:

    Not to to be too collusive or abusive of public processes — but it seems to me that a informal network could arrange for “disturbing threats” in text messages from legitimate strangers on burner phones for purposes of documenting threats and then reporting them to police. That could create a uniform basis to support an application — and a very pragmatic method of gaming the system. Then, if they suddenly stopped letting such “documented threats” form the basis for good cause issuance, there would be good due process claims for unequal enforcement, as well.

    1. avatar foo dog says:

      Lets not stoop to speculation on POTG using the tactics of the Left and Progressive Media, even in jest.

      We are winning on the facts and the actions of the courts, slowly forcing corrupt pols in DC and Sacramento to abide by the rule of law.

  16. avatar JQP says:

    Congrats, Em. You now have the choice NOT to be a victim (if for any reason, God forbid, some psycho wants to try to make you one). Be safe and God bless.

  17. avatar Former Water Walker says:

    It froze over. Good for Emily. It happened in Illinois with thousands of CC issued. Yeah I hope she’s isn’t targeted…

    1. avatar Curtis in IL says:

      She was already targeted (hence the threats). She wrote a popular book that is quite uncomplimentary of the powers that be in her home city.

      Only difference now, is that she’s a potentially armed target.

      1. avatar Geoff PR says:

        Why I hope she considers Kevlar armor as well as CC.

      2. avatar Former Water Walker says:

        Targeted for arrest or legal harassment Chuck.

        1. avatar Curtis in IL says:

          Thanks for the clarification.
          She’s been carrying the cross of gun rights in DC for awhile now. I expect she’s accustomed to that, and that she knows she’ll need to be careful.

  18. avatar ToddR says:

    So, in order to get a CCW in DC, you must first locate two bums and pay each one $20 to threaten you while your buddy films it. If I were a bum, I would rent myself out to D.C. POTG.

    1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      I was thinking more along the lines of having someone smash in your door and leave a rabbit boiling on the stove … I think your idea of $40 for two bums is a lot cleaner.

  19. avatar Joe R. says:

    If you need a “special danger” (much less two) If someone is requiring that you have a “special danger” and that they pre-empt you from protecting yourself BEFORE you have a “special danger” then you need to be one.

    “Common sense will tell us that the power which hath endeavored to subdue us, is of all
    others the most improper to defend us. Conquest may be effected under the pretence of
    friendship; and ourselves, after a long and brave resistance, be at last cheated into
    slavery…. Wherefore, if we must here-after protect ourselves, why not do it for ourselves?
    Why do it for another?” ( Paine Common Sense pg. 47)

  20. avatar Fred says:

    The reason anyone wants to carry concealed is “general in nature”. The Second Amendment is “general in nature”.

    1. avatar sagebrushracer says:

      yeah, i saw that too.

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

      I wonder if those poor dead bastards in France, who where threatened, and are dead, is also considered “general in nature”.

  21. avatar ghost says:

    I have always thought just being in Washington, DC was reason enough to be able to carry a firearm legally.

  22. avatar Michelle says:

    She was approved because she’s a “TV personality”, some degree of celebrity. If an identical person with identical threats applied, who wasn’t “On TV” (and likely wealthy) – they would not have been approved.

  23. avatar Pantera Vazquez says:

    Emily gets provisional permission to carry in DC………….has it begun snowing in Hades?

    Chances I’ll find great stocks of .22 at reasonable prices?………..Got my galoshes ready. 😉

  24. avatar James69 says:

    I just renewed mine today, whew, am I wore out. First get this, I had to hand them my license, then had to answer 4-7 questions then take a photo and sign my name. After all that I had to pay them with my debit card. I got my permit (two year @$51.50) and walked out. Man, I hate all these damm hoops you have to jump thru just to get one. (KIDDING, GOD BLESS ALABAMA!!!!!!!!!)

    I wonder if DC could be held responsable if she did apply for one, was denied and then something happened to her?

    Side note: If you can get one DO IT!

    1. avatar Jake Tallman says:

      Nope. I don’t remember the name of the case, but that did happen a few years ago. A D.C. woman applied for a gun permit (not a CCW permit, just one to have a gun in her home for protection), was denied, and later, her house was broken into while she was there. Cops didn’t arrive for an hour, during which time she was raped. She sued the city for both failing to protect her and denying her the ability to protect herself, or went to the Supreme Court, and they ruled in favor of DC.

  25. avatar James69 says:

    If the other reporter need a permit, all he has to do is draw a cartoon of muhamma boinking a sheep with obumas face. He’ll have all the documentation needed in short order.

  26. avatar JackieO says:

    That’s a pioneering woman. Once she has her permit ( optimism) she can do what NONE of us can….legally. You go.

  27. avatar foo dog says:

    Nice article, Johannes.

    Way to go, Emily. You are a fine role model. Keep us up to date on the process, pls!

    Now, lets see some visibility for Michelle Laxson, a co-plaintiff on the Peruta vs San Diego case, presntly awaiting decisions in the 9th DC. As I recall she is a self employed businesswoman, denied twice by Sheriff Gore for application to CCW for good cause as “self-defense” despite being robbed once.

  28. avatar SteveInCO says:

    I suppose I could go get my 100 trillion dollar bill (from Zimbabwe), carry it, and claim I carry lots of cash routinely so I need a gun to defend myself.

    If, that is, I were from a won’t issue state.

  29. avatar Grindstone says:

    Good to know that she is more special than the majority of all the other residents of DC.

    1. avatar foo dog says:

      Grind, somehow that comment smells bad. Care to elaborate?

      1. avatar Grindstone says:

        Smells bad how? The government of DC has deemed that her life is worth more than nearly everyone else, bar at least 14 other people.

      2. avatar Michelle says:

        I think he’s thinking what I am, or close to it. No knocking Ms. Miller personally, but she’s on TV. This is just more of, “if you’re wealthy or famous enough, the rules are different.”

        I’ll wait till a random Joe or Jane gets a CCW in DC. Then i’ll be impressed.

      3. avatar foo dog says:

        Michelle. Correct me if I am wrong but I read someplace that there are 16 approved or provisional CCW holders, like Emily, among something like 65+ in the pipeline. Are you inferring they are all rich and privileged, or are you just picking Emily out because she is a woman? Or a reporter with obvious pro-2A views that she is proud to share, in print.

        Did you even read her book, or the many articles about how she personally went through all the hoops to explain how convoluted it was? How DC required a test at a range, but had no approved gun ranges in the District at the time?

        Emily is “rich” in doing the work. When you find some other proof of privilege, inferred or actual, I’d be interested in the link. Until then it smells like jealousy to me. Or troll poo.

        1. avatar Grindstone says:

          You seem to be hung up on a completely unrelated pre-conceived notion which is making the point of my comment and Michelle’s sail completely over your head.

  30. avatar foo dog says:

    Apologies if this dupes, but commenting seems to have dumped another post into the ether:

    SAF filed a second challenge to DC carry permit scheme, on same reasoning as Peruta,
    Tl;dr – any infringement is uconstitutional. See SAF presser here:

    Note Justice Roberts assigned this case to Judge Scullen, who ruled against DC in Palmer.
    IANAL so I defer to those who are…Ralph, thoughts?

    More commentary in detail here:




  31. avatar Fuque says:

    Sounds to me like the rest of DC needs to invest in a good pair of slurppin pads if they want to carry concealed.

  32. avatar Ray Ficara says:

    D.C. Twat Of Police Kathy Lanier HATES Emlily and probably has an off the books double secret probation order to set her up for a “mistaken shooting”.


  33. avatar Marcus (Aurelius) Payne says:

    What did she do to get it? Print out emails from liberals to her station?

  34. avatar stateisevil says:

    I think we should stop calling carrying with a license exercising ones right and call it exercising a privilege. If you’re open carrying in a state where it’s legal (most of them) or CCing in Az,Wy,Ak, or Vt then you’re exercising your right. Let’s not surrender the language battle.

  35. avatar Publius says:

    She got it because of the articles she wrote about obtaining a gun in DC a few years back. They knew that if they didn’t issue her a CCW, she’d write more articles that would be used to strike down their restrictions.

  36. avatar Rich Gun Guy says:

    True threats don’t threaten first.

  37. avatar Mediocrates says:

    she’s a token. she can expect to be exploited.

  38. avatar JJ48 says:

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

    I note that they don’t say, “because it is not a valid threat”. They don’t say, “because the threat is all talk, and unlikely to be followed through”. No, it’s because it’s “general in nature”. Well, if the threat is valid and the terrorists follow through on it, don’t people end up just as dead as if a threat were followed through against a specific person? So, people who are chosen at random, or who happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, or who don’t receive a threat addressed specifically to them are somehow worth less than someone who receives a personalized threat? Apparently God created all men equal, but the government chooses some to be more equal than others.

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