• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Appeals court blocks enforcement of District’s strict concealed-carry law

American

Trump Grump Whisperer
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
96,114
Reaction score
33,461
Location
SE Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
https://www.washingtonpost.com/loca...56bd5568db8_story.html?utm_term=.5abd26637e71

A federal appeals court on Tuesday blocked the District from enforcing strict limits on carrying concealed firearms in public, restrictions that police officials have said are necessary to promote public safety in the nation’s capital.
In a 2-to-1 decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit said the District’s system, which requires a “good reason” to obtain a permit, is akin to an outright ban in violation of the Second Amendment.
“The 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,” wrote Judge Thomas B. Griffith, who was joined by Judge Stephen F. Williams.
Bans on the ability of most citizens to exercise an enumerated right would have to flunk any judicial test.”
Boom! What we've said all along.
 
When it comes to Constitutional rights, citizens do not have to demonstrate "good reason" to exercise those rights; it is the Government that has to demonstrate "good reason" to infringe on them.

In this case the Government could not.
 
When it comes to Constitutional rights, citizens do not have to demonstrate "good reason" to exercise those rights; it is the Government that has to demonstrate "good reason" to infringe on them.

In this case the Government could not.
Agreed!

And that infringement must be due to compelling reason, limited, and infrequent.
 
I would like the court(s) to go further as they did when considering the "hardship" and "discriminatory burden" claims of strict voter ID laws. If merely getting a valid, state issued, photo ID is "too much to ask" then surely the time and expense of getting a CCW perit or CHL is way over the line.
 
Back
Top Bottom