“District Judge Frederick J. Scullin Jr. last week gutted the system police use to determine who should be allowed a permit to bear a concealed weapon in the District,” the Washington Post’s editorial board recounts. “At issue is the provision that gives police discretion in granting gun permits by requiring applicants to state a good reason why they need to carry a weapon in public.” The “good cause” provision of D.C.’s “may issue” concealed carry laws are only “at issue” amongst those who seek to deny Americans their natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms. Like the Washington Post. But sometimes your enemy is your friend . . .
The Post editorial – ‘D.C.’s gun protections should stand’ – is a plea for the District to appeal Scullin’s decision to the Supreme Court. If D.C. Attorney General Karl A. Racine does so, and the Supremes agrees to hear the case, we may finally have a Court ruling that extends the individual right to keep and bear arms outside the home, striking down the “may issue” laws which create a de facto ban on concealed carry for millions of Americans.
I know. It’s ridiculous that any court of law would acknowledge (and thus protect) the individual right to keep and bear arms only in the home. But there it is. Courts throughout the United States have subjected concealed and open carry restrictions to argument about social utility, summarized by the phrase “do it for the children.” It’s an elitist attitude, illustrated here [paragraph break added]:
The only ruling that found fault with this “may issue” system of permitting, from a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, was vacated; the full court is set to hear the case next month. That Judge Scullin’s ruling is such a legal outlier gives the District good cause to appeal it.
The even more powerful reason is what is at stake — not only for the District but also the nation. No city needs to be more mindful of who can carry concealed weapons in public than the capital, which is home to the president, the workplace of Congress and host to world leaders and dignitaries. It’s a point sadly lost on Judge Scullin, a senior U.S. district judge from Upstate New York who was assigned to hear the case because of a court backlog.
Was the Post so quick to dismiss challenges to “gay marriage” bans back in the day, when courts around the country consistently ruled against it? I don’t think so. Nor do I think the Post’s “D.C. is a special case” argument reflects well on their respect for the principles upon which this country stands. Specifically, the “all men are created equal” preamble to the Declaration of Independence.
D.C. Attorney General Karl A. Racine, in consultation with other D.C. officials, is weighing the city’s options. He should make every effort to get this harmful ruling reversed.
Harmful? To whom is it harmful that Americans are able the exercise their gun rights without government infringement? Why, the government of course. And their lackies. Need I mention any names? Anyway, I know you should be careful what you wish for, but I hope this editorial helps inspire an appeal on Scullin’s ruling. Watch this space.