# What comes next for DC's CC law?



## boze (Oct 21, 2013)

https://bearingarms.com/jenn-j/2017/07/25/federal-appeals-court-dismantles-dcs-concealed-carry-law/

So now that the federal appeals court has blocked the "good reason to fear injury" requirement for carrying in Washington DC what should residents expect to change and when? Maybe we check back in a week or a week or a month and the DC permit application doesn't have that language in it anymore? Or is there another appeal or court thing that happens before that?


----------



## desertman (Aug 29, 2013)

boze said:


> https://bearingarms.com/jenn-j/2017/07/25/federal-appeals-court-dismantles-dcs-concealed-carry-law/
> 
> So now that the federal appeals court has blocked the "good reason to fear injury" requirement for carrying in Washington DC what should residents expect to change and when? Maybe we check back in a week or a week or a month and the DC permit application doesn't have that language in it anymore? Or is there another appeal or court thing that happens before that?


While this decision is indeed good news. Don't just pop the champaign corks yet.



> D.C. Council Chairman Phil Mendelson, who helped craft the original regulations, *urged city attorneys to seek a review of the ruling by the full D.C. Circuit* - where Democrat-appointed judges hold a 7-4 majority. All three judges who heard the concealed carry cases were appointed by Republican presidents.--Washington Times


----------



## Steve M1911A1 (Feb 6, 2008)

You know, that's really interesting!
Appeals-court judges are supposed to decide whether or not decisions of the lower courts hew to the provisions and restrictions of the Constitution, and to the previous appeals rulings which apply to the case at hand.
As such, appeals-court judges should be politically neutral. It should not matter who appointed them to the bench. It should not matter how and for whom they personally vote.

And yet, here we have an issue that has already been adjudicated by an even higher court, and is fraught with decisive precedents, but it seems that the direction of the decision still will depend upon the political leanings of the several appeals-court's judges.

Talk about "un-American activities"!
Where is the HUAC, now that we finally, actually need it?

I'se regusted!


----------



## boze (Oct 21, 2013)

The process is unfamiliar to me and googling it I didn't see what the upshot was in terms of when there'd be a change so people could apply.


----------



## desertman (Aug 29, 2013)

Steve M1911A1 said:


> You know, that's really interesting!
> Appeals-court judges are supposed to decide whether or not decisions of the lower courts hew to the provisions and restrictions of the Constitution, and to the previous appeals rulings which apply to the case at hand.
> As such, appeals-court judges should be politically neutral. It should not matter who appointed them to the bench. *It should not matter how and for whom they personally vote.*
> 
> ...


Yeah that's how it should be. But how it should be and how it is are two different things.

Currently there are 24 vacancies on the federal courts waiting to be filled. Trump hit a home run with the nomination and confirmation of Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court. More than likely Ginsberg at age 84, Kennedy at 80 and Breyer at 78 will be replaced during Trump's term. Thank God for that especially Ginsburg and Breyer. Kennedy's more of a wild card in his rulings but he did rule in our favor in the Heller/McDonald decisions. How he would rule on the constitutionality of carrying a firearm outside the home for personal self defense is anyone's guess? Replacing him with a solid constitutionalist would definitely be in our favor. As of late he has been talking about retirement. Ginsburg has pancreatic cancer. How she made it this far is beyond me? At 84 I doubt she'll make it through Trump's term.

But the problem is that all of these bullshit unconstitutional laws will have to be fought through the lower courts before reaching SCOTUS. Who may or may not hear the case.

Unfortunately most politicians are lawyers who write laws for the benefit of lawyers. They keep the lawyers in business.


----------



## desertman (Aug 29, 2013)

boze said:


> The process is unfamiliar to me and googling it I didn't see what the upshot was in terms of when there'd be a change so people could apply.


That's a really good question, I wish I had the answer. If I was a resident in the jurisdiction of the DC Circuit, I wouldn't wait too long to obtain a permit. Who knows how long it will be before the full court hears or even takes the case? My guess is that the full panel of judges, the majority of which are Democrats will want to overturn this as soon as possible. In which case the permits would be valid until they expire. Once they expire you'll be shit outta' luck and will no longer be able to legally carry a gun outside the home. Just as it is now. It is unlikely that they would be renewed.

You can also be sure of one other thing: You can bet your ass that the licensing authorities are going to drag this out for as long as possible. "We don't have the manpower." "Your fingerprints have been delayed." "The NICS system is all backed up." etc. Anything that they can come up with.


----------



## berettatoter (Sep 1, 2011)

Ahh, we see how the tentacles of government and politics have removed the blindfold from her face!


----------

